2012 COA 133
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- McCarthy pled guilty to vehicular assault and leaving the scene after driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury to two victims.
- The trial court sentenced him to five years in DOC and three years of mandatory parole.
- Eight restitution hearings culminated in an order awarding funds to two victims and to a caregiver, and $417,750 to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (the Department) for Medicaid benefits.
- The Department sought restitution, but McCarthy appeals only the portion awarding restitution to the Department.
- Colorado precedents (Dubois, Padilla-Lopez) limit governmental entities’ recovery under restitution unless expressly included or the underlying crime identifies the entity as a victim; the trial court relied on a broad statutory definition of 'victim' to include the Department.
- This court reverses the restitution order in part, remanding to exclude the Department’s $417,750 restitution claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Department a victim under the restitution statute? | McCarthy argues Department is not a victim since not enumerated and underlying crime does not aggrieve it. | People contend the broad definition of 'victim' encompasses governmental entities like the Department. | No; Department is not a victim. |
| Does the underlying crime or contract theory support Department restitution | Dubois/Padilla-Lopez permit recovery for government entities or insurers under specific circumstances. | No contractual relationship with the Department; no recovery as insurer. | No contractual basis; Department cannot recover. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubois v. People, 211 P.3d 41 (Colo.2009) (governmental entities may qualify as victims only if statute or crime identifies them)
- Padilla-Lopez v. People, 2012 CO 49, 279 P.3d 651 (Colo.2012) (DHS not a victim where crime does not aggrieve government and statute not explicit)
- Gorman v. Tucker, 961 P.2d 1126 (Colo.1998) (department's independent civil right does not control criminal restitution issue)
- McKinney v. Kautzky, 801 P.2d 508 (Colo.1990) (when statutory language is unclear, use statutory construction to discern intent)
- People v. Rivera, 250 P.3d 1272 (Colo.App.2010) (restitution goals focus on making victims whole)
- Lage v. People, 232 P.3d 138 (Colo.App.2009) (under vehicular assault, the victim is a human being)