Racquel Postiglione v. State of Indiana
84 N.E.3d 659
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~1:00 a.m., Postiglione and companions, visibly intoxicated, were repeatedly asked to leave the Alley Cat bar after creating disturbances; a bartender and a regular escorted them outside.
- An altercation in the alley followed: Postiglione grabbed Joe Kelly’s beard and hair; her companions engaged and repeatedly punched, kicked, and stomped Kelly, who fell and sustained a broken leg, broken ankle, facial abrasions, and later required ankle surgery.
- Postiglione was convicted after a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor battery (bodily injury); the court found co-defendants more responsible for the most serious injuries but concluded Postiglione initiated the fracas.
- The State introduced medical bills totaling $33,451.33 and evidence that the Violent Crime Compensation Fund paid $15,000; the trial court ordered Postiglione to pay the remaining $18,451.33 in restitution.
- Postiglione challenged restitution, arguing she did not cause the ankle injury or the surgery and thus should not be responsible for those medical costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion ordering $18,451.33 restitution | State: restitution appropriate because Kelly’s medical costs were a result of Postiglione’s battery and foreseeably flowed from the fracas she started | Postiglione: she did not cause the severe injuries (ankle/surgery); co-defendants caused the broken ankle so restitution is improper | Affirmed. Court held evidence and reasonable inferences support restitution because injuries were a direct consequence of acts initiated by Postiglione |
Key Cases Cited
- Sickels v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. 2013) (restitution payable to those who suffered injury as a direct and immediate result of defendant’s criminal acts)
- Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 1990) (victim definition for restitution can include third parties who suffered monetary losses as a result of the defendant’s crime)
- Lowden v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (severity of injury is not an element; injury can be a result of the prohibited conduct)
- Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 2012) (restitution review is for abuse of discretion)