State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs, 2015 Minn. LEXIS 374

Defendant Brandon Riggs stabbed the victim after an altercation; Riggs pleaded guilty to terroristic threats and assault charge was dismissed.
Victim sought restitution including $2,973.07 for employment-related expenses (plus small medical/property amounts not at issue).
At the restitution hearing the district court reduced employment-related restitution by half, citing the victim as the initial aggressor and the defendant’s inability to pay.
The State appealed; the court of appeals reversed, holding Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 provides an exclusive list of factors and victim fault is not among them.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether subdivision 1’s listed factors are exclusive and whether victim fault may be considered in determining restitution amount.

Issue	State's Argument	Riggs' Argument	Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 provides an exclusive list of factors for restitution amount	The statute’s phrase “shall consider the following factors” and use of the definite article limits courts to the listed factors only	The statute does not expressly limit consideration to those two factors; “as a result of the offense” permits considering circumstances like victim fault	Held: Exclusive list — court may consider only the factors expressly listed in subd. 1(a)
Whether a victim’s fault (initial aggressor) may be considered as part of the economic-loss factor (“as a result of the offense”)	The phrase requires considering economic loss that follows from the defendant’s criminal conduct, not reasons/circumstances leading to it	The phrase allows consideration of causation and alternative causes (victim’s conduct) when assessing whether loss resulted from the offense	Held: Victim fault cannot be used to reduce restitution under the economic-loss factor; “as a result of the offense” means loss resulting from the defendant’s offense

Northland Country Club v. Comm’r of Taxation, 241 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1976) (omission of statutory language presumed deliberate)
State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2012) (definite article “the” can limit statutory reference)
In re N.J.S., 753 N.W.2d 704 (Minn. 2008) ("shall consider the following factors" construed as exclusive list)
State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1996) (restitution may exceed amount proven at trial; breadth of restitution analysis)
State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (interpretation of statutory factors courts must consider)
State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. 2007) (restitution claims too attenuated from the criminal act should be rejected)