State Of Washington v. Rosemary Kamb, 73149-1

Rosemary Harriet Kamb entered an Alford guilty plea and stipulated to an aggravating circumstance (abuse of trust) for sentencing.
The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence of 30 months' confinement.
After a restitution hearing, the court ordered restitution of $25,000 to Dorothy Knott and $204,909.25 to Woodland Park Zoo (total sought by State was $229,909.25; Kamb stipulated to $48,000).
Kamb appealed the restitution award, arguing the court should have offset reasonable trustee compensation and that certain check payments (including to "Cash" and to Josephine White) were not proven illegitimate.
The State presented an accounting expert who included in restitution expenditures for which she found no reasonable explanation after reviewing trust records and public searches.
The Court of Appeals reviewed restitution for abuse of discretion and whether the State proved amounts by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by not offsetting trustee compensation from restitution	State: restitution need not be offset; defendant looted accounts and is not entitled to fees	Kamb: entitled to reasonable trustee fees which should reduce restitution	Court: no abuse of discretion; Kamb made no showing she was entitled to fees; she may pursue civil claim if entitled
Whether State proved inclusion of an unexplained "Cash" check in restitution	State: expert excluded no-explanation expenditures; inclusion reasonable	Kamb: check to "Cash" may have legitimate explanation; not proven illegitimate	Court: expert testimony supported inclusion; checks without reasonable explanation may be included in restitution
Whether State proved the payment to Josephine White was illegitimate	State: expert could not identify payee or supporting records and thus excluded as legitimate expense	Kamb: endorsement by White shows legitimacy; State presented no direct proof of forgery or illegitimacy	Court: preponderance met via expert’s inability to find invoice or trust justification; State carried its burden

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (describes guilty plea entered while professing innocence)
State v. Woods, 90 Wn. App. 904 (1998) (standard of review for restitution: abuse of discretion)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (2008) (restitution must be supported by substantial credible evidence; State bears preponderance when amount disputed)
State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256 (2010) (restitution statutes intended to compensate victims and do not limit civil remedies)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (trial judges have discretion and restitution may exceed actual injury up to statutory limits)
State v. Shannahan, 69 Wn. App. 512 (1993) (offset for restitution is within trial court’s discretion)