State Of Washington v. Brian David Beasley, 75002-0

Background

In 2015 Brian Beasley stole a 2012 Ford Explorer leased to Robert Neideigh, who used it as his work vehicle; Beasley pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle and agreed to pay restitution for losses to the vehicle and its contents.
Neideigh provided an August 2015 e-mail listing items taken from the Explorer with replacement values and later submitted a sworn Victim Loss Statement requesting $2,968.25 in restitution, attaching supporting documentation.
At sentencing the court reserved restitution and later held a restitution hearing; Neideigh testified by phone under oath about the items and their values; Beasley waived presence but his counsel cross-examined and objected to the amount and evidentiary basis.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the listed items were taken and their replacement values were established, and ordered restitution of $2,968.25.
Beasley appealed, arguing (1) lack of evidence of causal connection and insufficient support for the amount, and (2) that imposing restitution without a jury violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi/Southern Union.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to show causal connection between crime and losses	State: sworn Victim Loss Statement and victim testimony show items were in vehicle and lost because of theft	Beasley: items not reported to police/insurer; email not sworn; inadequate proof linking listed items to theft	Court: preponderance standard met—sworn statement + unrebutted testimony suffice to prove causal connection and amount
Sufficiency of evidence for restitution amount	State: submitted documentation of replacement values and victim testified to ownership and values	Beasley: challenged documentation and lack of prior reporting undermines value and credibility	Court: amounts are "easily ascertainable" and supported by substantial, credible evidence; credibility for trier of fact
Use of phone testimony at restitution hearing	State: allowed victim to testify by phone; rules of evidence not strictly applicable	Beasley: abused discretion—victim unavailable in person and phone testimony improper	Court: restitution hearings not bound by evidence rules; permitting phone testimony was not an abuse of discretion; defendant had opportunity to cross-examine
Right to jury trial for restitution under Apprendi/Southern Union	Beasley: restitution increases penalty and thus facts affecting amount must be found by a jury	State: restitution is remedial, indeterminate and tied to victim loss—not a fact increasing a statutory maximum	Court: follows Kinneman—no right to jury on restitution under RCW 9.94A.753; Apprendi/Southern Union not implicated because no statutory maximum for restitution

Key Cases Cited

State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68 (discusses statutory authority for restitution in Washington)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (preponderance standard and causal "but for" test for restitution)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (causal connection standard for restitution)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (no jury right for restitution under RCW 9.94A.753)
State v. Mines, 163 Wn.2d 387 (credibility determinations for trier of fact)
State v. Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. 251 (vacated restitution where State failed to meet burden and defendant was denied evidentiary hearing)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (Apprendi principles applied to statutory fines with per-day maximums)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (definition of statutory maximum in sentencing context)
United States v. Green, 722 F.3d 1146 (restitution not implicated by Southern Union because no statutory maximum)
United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (discusses Apprendi/Southern Union interaction and restitution)
United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451 (restitution statutes lack determinate maximums; Apprendi inapplicable)