R.S. v. Commonwealth
2014 Ky. LEXIS 6
Ky.2014Background
- R.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated a juvenile public offender for complicity to second-degree criminal mischief and ordered to pay full restitution.
- The conduct occurred during a memorial gathering when R.S. and others painted images and messages on cars, escalating to damage on at least one vehicle.
- A victim’s car sustained over $1,600 in damage from scratches on the hood, doors, and quarter panels; police were alerted after multiple reports of similar vandalism.
- R.S. admitted involvement in painting cars but denied knowledge of the scratches; a neighbor witnessed the group but could not positively identify R.S.
- The district court found R.S. acted affirmatively and that the scratches occurred during the group’s activities, ordering sole restitution by R.S. despite others’ involvement.
- The Court of Appeals and this Court affirmed, approving the adjudication and the discretionary restitution order compelling one accomplice to pay the entire amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for adjudication | R.S. argues the Commonwealth had only a tenuous link to damages. | R.S. contends insufficient evidence to prove complicity. | Evidence sufficient to adjudicate R.S. as a juvenile public offender. |
| Complicity to the result without specific intent | Complicity to the result requires the state of mind for the result; intent not necessary. | Specific intent or wantonness must be shown for guilt. | Complicity to the result does not require specific intent; wanton conduct shown; conviction upheld. |
| Restitution by a single accomplice | Restitution should be apportioned among multiple who participated. | Court should not order full restitution by one offender when others involved. | Trial court may order a single accomplice to pay full restitution; apportionment not mandatory. |
| Restitution hearing and best interests findings | Restitution findings must be made and restitution hearing conducted to serve best interests. | Lack of formal findings does not amount to manifest injustice. | Court remains required to consider best interests; but the order here was not manifest injustice; uphold ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tharp v. Commonwealth, 40 S.W.3d 360 (Ky.2000) (distinguishes complicity to the act vs. to the result under KRS 502.020)
- Phelps v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 237 (Ky.2004) (juvenile adjudications; no conviction; standards applied to review)
- Harper v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 261 (Ky.2001) (evidentiary and standard-of-proof considerations in Kentucky decisions)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.2000) (trial court evidentiary standards and review frameworks)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied to juvenile adjudications)