State Of Washington v. John B. Velezmoro
196 Wash. App. 552
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- John B. Velezmoro pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of child pornography after police found many illicit files on his computer, including seven videos of a victim identified as "Vicky."
- Vicky was sexually abused as a child and videos of that abuse were produced and widely distributed; learning images remained in circulation caused renewed trauma and ongoing economic and treatment losses.
- At restitution hearing Vicky sought recovery for actual (easily ascertainable) losses; she did not claim she knew Velezmoro specifically possessed her images.
- Trial court found unrecovered losses remained and awarded Velezmoro $5,000 as his apportioned share, acknowledging precise apportionment was impossible.
- Velezmoro appealed, arguing restitution requires but‑for causation and that the award amount was speculative; the State invoked Paroline and alternative causation principles.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the Paroline approach (aggregate/alternative causation) and finding the $5,000 award within the trial court’s discretion; appellate costs were denied because Velezmoro was indigent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Vicky) | Defendant's Argument (Velezmoro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may be ordered absent but‑for causation when many anonymous possessors exist | Paroline approach: when images are widely circulated, each possessor shares in causing harm; courts may use aggregate/alternative causation to apportion restitution | Restitution requires traditional but‑for causation; absent proof that defendant’s possession was the but‑for cause, restitution is improper | Court affirmed use of alternative/aggregate causation (Paroline) because but‑for would defeat compensatory and punitive aims; restitution may be apportioned among many possessors |
| Whether Washington statute differs from federal statute such that Paroline is inapplicable | Washington’s statute similarly requires that injury "result[]" from the offense; cause‑in‑fact language is essentially the same so Paroline is persuasive | Paroline interprets a specialized federal statute (18 U.S.C. §2259); Washington law requires but‑for causation | Court held the federal and Washington causation language are sufficiently similar; Paroline reasoning applies |
| Whether the $5,000 restitution award was speculative or unsupported | State/Vicky presented evidence of actual losses and unrecovered amounts; trial court reasonably apportioned a small share for this defendant | $5,000 is speculative; State failed to show causal link between Velezmoro’s specific possession and Vicky’s losses; previous restitution to others may have compensated her | Court found evidence sufficient to estimate losses and that $5,000 was a reasonable, non‑token apportionment under Paroline; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellate costs should be awarded | N/A | Court should award appellate costs if allowed | Court declined costs because trial court found Velezmoro indigent and State did not rebut indigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (Supreme Court adopts an aggregate/alternative causation approach for restitution where images are widely circulated and but‑for causation is impracticable)
- State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) (standard of review: restitution orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (restitution serves punitive and compensatory purposes; losses must be causally connected to the crime)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (2008) (State must prove restitution amount by a preponderance; speculative awards reversed where causal connection to defendant’s conduct is lacking)
- Hue v. Farmbov Spray Co. Inc., 127 Wn.2d 67 (1995) (Washington recognized aggregate causation in tort context where multiple contributors formed a causal cloud)