435 P.3d 1022
Alaska Ct. App.2018Background
- At age 15, R.C. started two fires at an elementary school causing extensive damage; he admitted delinquency and a restitution hearing followed.
- The State sought joint-and-several restitution: $159,161.17 against R.C. and his parents (covering both fires).
- R.C. testified he had negligible assets (≈$100), no job history, limited earning prospects, and asked restitution be set at an amount he could realistically pay.
- The magistrate documented R.C.’s limited ability to pay and recommended payment schedules but otherwise adopted the State’s full restitution figure. The superior court entered the full $159,161.17 judgment.
- On appeal R.C. argued the court erred by not reducing the restitution amount based on his inability to pay; the State disputed preservation, invited-error, and mootness defenses.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the statutory prohibition on considering ability to pay for adult criminal defendants (AS 12.55.045(g)) does not apply to juvenile delinquency restitution under AS 47.12, vacated the restitution order, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.C.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts may consider a juvenile’s ability to pay when setting the amount of restitution | R.C.: Juvenile courts must be able to consider a minor’s limited ability to pay and set "suitable restitution" accordingly | State: The prohibition in AS 12.55.045(g) against considering ability to pay in criminal cases applies equally to juvenile cases | Court: AS 12.55.045(g) does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings; courts may consider a minor’s ability to pay when setting restitution |
| Whether R.C. waived the ability-to-pay argument | R.C.: Preserved—argued inability to pay and requested realistic restitution; magistrate reports documented ability-to-pay | State: R.C. failed to adequately preserve and even conceded parity with adult cases | Court: No waiver; trial court had adequate notice and record to review the issue |
| Whether invited error bars R.C.’s claim | R.C.: Did not invite the court’s error | State: A sentence in R.C.’s briefing conceded adult-equivalent restitution, so error was invited | Court: Invited-error doctrine inapplicable; the record shows no request by R.C. that led to the alleged error |
| Whether the claim is moot because the court considered ability to pay for payment scheduling | R.C.: Issue concerns the substantive restitution amount, not scheduling | State: Magistrate noted ability-to-pay and recommended schedules—so any error was harmless/moot | Court: Not moot—amount ($159k) far exceeds minor’s ability; question ripe and requires remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Karr v. State, 686 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1984) (courts must consider defendant’s ability to pay to further rehabilitation when ordering restitution)
- J.C.W. v. State, 880 P.2d 1067 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994) (trial courts required to consider a minor’s ability to pay in juvenile restitution)
- W.S. v. State, 174 P.3d 256 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (discussed but did not resolve whether AS 12.55.045(g) applies to juvenile cases)
- Hodges v. State, 158 P.3d 864 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007) (upheld constitutionality of AS 12.55.045(g) for adult criminal cases)
- Thompson v. State, 64 P.3d 132 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) (in joint-and-several liability, ability-to-pay analysis addresses full potential restitution)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (U.S. 2014) (discusses restitution’s rehabilitative and compensatory purposes)
- Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1986) (distinguishes restitution’s purposes from civil tort remedies)