State of Washington v. Nathan Earl Eldred, 33418-0

Background

In Feb 2013 Mike Abbott found his farmhouse and shed burglarized; items taken included two John Deere push mowers, tires/wheels, a Snap-On toolbox, and other equipment.
Investigators learned suspects used Nathan Eldred’s pickup to move stolen items; one mower was recovered at Eldred’s residence, another at a co-defendant’s mother’s home; some tires/wheels not recovered.
Eldred pled guilty (in an amended information) to rendering criminal assistance 2nd degree and possession of stolen property 2nd degree, among other charges; he agreed the court could rely on police reports for a factual basis and accepted restitution could be ordered.
At a restitution hearing the State sought $3,544.25; the court awarded $3,106.65 (one mower and two sets of tires/wheels) after ruling the defendant’s possession/assistance caused the victim’s loss.
Eldred appealed, arguing restitution was improper because the victim’s loss occurred before Eldred’s crimes (i.e., he did not cause the theft) and restitution must be causally tied to the defendant’s offense of conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered when the victim’s initial loss (burglary) preceded defendant’s post-theft assistance/possession	State: Eldred’s possession and assistance were a but-for cause of the victim’s permanent loss because his truck enabled removal/dispersion of stolen items	Eldred: His crimes occurred after the theft and did not cause the victim’s loss; restitution limited to losses causally connected to defendant’s own offense	Court: Affirmed restitution — at least possession by Eldred formed a causal link to Abbott’s loss (items were removed using Eldred’s truck)
Whether restitution can be based on a broader scheme or acts not charged	State: Restitution may cover losses resulting from the defendant’s proven acts (possession/assistance) tied to deprivation	Eldred: Court impermissibly based restitution on a general scheme beyond the precise offenses charged	Court: Rejected challenge—restitution may be imposed for losses resulting from the crimes of conviction; here possession/assistance directly led to deprivation
Standard/burden for restitution hearing when facts disputed	State: Must prove amount and causal link by preponderance	Eldred: Insufficient proof of causal connection or knowledge to support award	Court: Applied preponderance standard; reasonable inferences from co-defendant’s statement supported causal finding
Whether possession-only liability can support restitution for the full value of stolen items	State: Possession that is part of a scheme disposing of property can justify restitution for permanent deprivation	Eldred: Possession does not equal participation in theft; Griffith suggests limits	Court: Distinguished Griffith and relied on precedent (e.g., Rogers) — proven possession that enables permanent deprivation supports restitution

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920 (2012) (restitution authority derives from statute)
State v. Davison, 116 Wn.2d 917 (1991) (statutory basis for restitution and its aims)
State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (1999) (restitution forces defendant to face consequences)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (limits on restitution for general schemes not part of charged offense)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) ("but for" causation standard; abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (2008) (limits on restitution against possessors when evidence does not show possession of all stolen items)
State v. Rogers, 30 Wn. App. 653 (1981) (possession/disposal as part of scheme can charge defendant with permanent deprivation)
State v. Woods, 90 Wn. App. 904 (1998) (restitution must be causally related to the offense charged)
State v. Mead, 67 Wn. App. 486 (1992) (restitution limited to damages resulting from the crime of conviction)