State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998).
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 4
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Feb. 2014 police found hundreds of pieces of stolen mail in Chao Moua’s vehicle containing identifying information for 422 individuals; Moua pleaded guilty to identity theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.527.
- The identity-theft statute requires the court to order at least $1,000 restitution to each “direct victim.” A “direct victim” is a person who “incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime.”
- The State sought $1,000 for each of the 422 affected individuals; the district court initially ordered $1,000 to each, then reduced awards to 15 individuals who either had economic loss or spent significant time remediating identity problems.
- Moua challenged the minimum-restoration provision as violating procedural due process and disputed who qualified as a “direct victim.” The State appealed the district court’s limitation of restitution recipients.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether (1) the $1,000 minimum restitution provision violates procedural due process, and (2) whether theft of a person’s name plus private identifying information (absent actual economic loss or proof of remedial steps) constitutes “loss or harm” making that person a direct victim entitled to the $1,000 minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $1,000 per-victim minimum restitution provision violates procedural due process | Moua: statutory minimum denies meaningful opportunity to contest individual restitution amounts | State: statute provides notice and procedures; Moua had hearings and opportunities to contest victims | Held: No procedural due-process violation; Moua received adequate notice and hearing opportunities |
| Whether a person whose name and private identifying information was stolen but who suffered no economic loss (and has not yet taken remedial steps) has incurred “loss or harm” under the statute | Moua: general restitution rules require proof of economic loss or evidence of remedial action | State: theft of name + private identifying info itself causes loss/harm (risk, exposure) regardless of current economic loss | Held: Theft of name plus private identifying information is sufficient to show “loss or harm”; such persons are direct victims entitled to $1,000 minimum restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 2012) (procedural due process standard: notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- State v. Wiseman, 816 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. App. 2012) (distinguishing procedural vs substantive due-process challenges)
- State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1999) (district court’s broad discretion to award restitution)
- Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. App. 2011) (identity-theft victims need not submit loss affidavits to recover under identity-theft statute)