486 P.3d 188
Ariz.2021Background
- Arizona Constitution Art. 2 §2.1(A)(8) (Victims’ Bill of Rights, VBR) guarantees victims the right to "receive prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim’s loss or injury."
- In 2006 the legislature reclassified certain traffic violations as criminal in A.R.S. §28-672 and added §28-672(G), capping restitution for violations at $10,000 (later raised statutorily in 2018).
- In 2017 Vivek Patel was convicted under §28-672 for causing serious physical injury; the victim's total economic loss was $161,191.99, insurer paid $100,000, and the restitution sought from Patel was $61,191.99.
- The municipal court ordered full restitution; the superior court reversed holding the VBR did not guarantee "full" restitution and §28-672(G) controlled; the court of appeals reinstated full restitution and this Court granted review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court held the VBR guarantees restitution equal to the full economic loss caused by criminal conduct, declared §28-672(G) unconstitutional and severed it, and reinstated the $61,191.99 restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VBR guarantees "full" restitution | Patel: VBR's phrase "prompt restitution" does not mean full; no text says "full" or "unlimited." | State: "Restitution" in ordinary and legal usage means restoring victim to pre-loss position; voters intended full restitution. | Held: VBR guarantees restitution equal to the full economic loss caused by the defendant's criminal conduct. |
| Whether §28-672(G)'s restitution cap is a valid exercise of legislative authority under Art. 2 §2.1(D) | Patel: Legislature may define/limit restitution under §2.1(D); cap is a permissible policy choice. | State: Cap conflicts with constitutional right and does not advance victims' rights. | Held: §28-672(G) is an unconstitutional limitation and void. |
| Whether §28-672(G) is severable from §28-672 | Patel: The cap was integral to the 2006 amendments and later legislative action suggests it is not severable. | State: Remaining statute operates independently; legislative history shows no indivisible link. | Held: Subsection (G) is severable; criminal provisions remain operative without the cap. |
| Whether this decision invalidates other statutory restitution limits (e.g., A.R.S. §13-809(B), §8-344) | Patel: Similar limitations should also fall. | State: Those statutes differ and do not present the same constitutional conflict. | Held: Court declined to strike those provisions; §13-809(B) and §8-344 were not invalidated here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. Martone, 170 Ariz. 237 (1992) (apply plain language of VBR when interpreting victims' rights)
- Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. Downie ex rel. County of Maricopa, 218 Ariz. 466 (2008) (VBR grants victims right to prompt restitution; criminal code requires restitution in full amount of economic loss)
- State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (2007) (legislature may enact laws to implement VBR when they advance victims' rights)
- State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (2002) (restitution limited to losses caused "but for" the offense and directly caused by criminal conduct)
- State v. Patel, 247 Ariz. 482 (2019) (Court of Appeals holding that "restitution" means restoring victim to pre-loss position and that VBR guarantees full restitution)