2014 COA 23
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Hank Taylor Sieck was convicted of vehicular assault-driving under the influence after driving over 110 mph while under the influence of alcohol and drugs and losing control of the car.
- A passenger, J.P., was ejected and suffered a permanent brain injury.
- Defendant pled guilty to a class four felony and received a four-year DOC sentence.
- The prosecution sought $833,194.10 in restitution for medical expenses, out-of-pocket costs, and lost wages.
- At the restitution hearing, Sieck did not dispute damages but argued J.P.’s failure to wear a seatbelt was an independent intervening cause.
- The trial court held seatbelt nonuse was simple negligence, not an independent intervening cause, and ordered restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to wear a seatbelt amount to an independent intervening cause? | People argues no; seatbelt failure is not an independent intervening cause. | Sieck argues seatbelt failure is independent and relieves restitution. | No; seatbelt nonuse is not an independent intervening cause. |
| Was the restitution order proper under proximate-cause doctrine and court discretion? | People contends restitution may cover all proximate losses caused by defendant's conduct. | Sieck argues potential limits or reductions due to victim's conduct should apply. | Court did not err; restitution affirmed consistent with proximate-cause law. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mata, 56 P.3d 1169 (Colo. App. 2002) (trial court need not conduct mini-trial on restitution issues; not required to resolve comparative negligence.)
- People v. Johnson, 780 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1989) (restitution issues and not necessary to litigate civil-defense theories in criminal restitution.)
- People v. Clay, 74 P.3d 473 (Colo. App. 2003) (restitution obligation may be full even with other contributing causes.)
- People v. Duran, 991 P.2d 313 (Colo. App. 1999) (restitution not reduced by victims' comparative fault in restitution context.)
- People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 277 (Colo. App. 2004) (seatbelt nonuse not gross negligence; not independent intervening cause for criminal liability.)
- People v. McAfee, 104 P.3d 226 (Colo. App. 2004) (seatbelt nonuse not gross negligence; not mitigating restitution.)
- People v. Henson, 307 P.3d 1135 (Colo. App. 2013) (proximate cause standard in restitution context.)
- People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P.2d 223 (Colo. 1998) (independent intervening cause doctrine.)
- Clay, 74 P.3d 473 (Colo. App. 2003) (independent intervening cause analysis applicable to restitution.)
- Reynolds, 252 P.3d 1128 (Colo. App. 2010) (simple vs. gross negligence in intervening-cause analysis.)