People v. Scott H.
164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 466
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2010 a petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 alleged then-17-year-old Scott H. committed a lewd act on a 12-year-old; Scott admitted and was made a ward of the juvenile court.
- The People moved for $9,060 (later awarded $9,540) in restitution for mental-health treatment costs for the direct victim and the victim’s mother, stepfather, and siblings.
- The juvenile court awarded restitution for therapy to the victim and family members, finding family-wide devastation from the lewd act.
- On appeal the issue was whether family members are “victims” entitled to restitution under Welfare & Institutions Code § 730.6, which does not expressly list derivative victims as does Penal Code § 1202.4.
- The Court of Appeal originally reversed as to family members, but after the California Supreme Court’s transfer and direction to consider article I, § 28 (Proposition 9, “Marsy’s Law”) and People v. Runyan, the court reconsidered.
- The court concluded that under the Constitution’s definition of “victim” (which expressly includes family members and applies to crimes and delinquent acts), § 730.6 must be interpreted to include derivative victims, and affirmed the restitution award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 730.6 authorizes restitution to derivative victims (family members) for a juvenile’s delinquent act | The People: constitutional requirements (art I, § 28) and related case law require § 730.6 be read to include derivative victims | Scott: § 730.6’s text does not list derivative victims; constitutional restitution language refers to crimes/convicted persons and thus need not apply to juvenile delinquency; policy reasons support limiting awards to direct victims | Court: Article I, § 28’s broad definition of “victim” (including family members and covering delinquent acts) controls; § 730.6 must be interpreted to include derivative victims; restitution award to family members affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Runyan, 54 Cal.4th 849 (Supreme Court direction to consider constitutional impact of Marsy’s Law)
- Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785 (constitutional provisions control over conflicting statutes)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (discussing legislative amendments to Penal Code § 1202.4 regarding derivative victims)
- In re M.W., 169 Cal.App.4th 1 (restitution may include cost of victim’s mental-health services)
- In re Alexander A., 192 Cal.App.4th 847 (restitution is available in juvenile proceedings and balanced with juvenile system goals)