State v. Aragon
374 Mont. 391
| Mont. | 2014Background
- On Aug 24, 2012 Aragon, driving under the influence, crashed into Barbara Turcotte’s attached garage; he admitted responsibility.
- Prosecutors negotiated dismissal of a felony and Aragon pleaded guilty in Justice Court to misdemeanor DUI and reckless driving; sentencing occurred Feb 28, 2013.
- Turcotte submitted a victim loss affidavit claiming $3,270 in damage (attached: Absolute Construction estimate for repainting whole house); Aragon’s insurer submitted a $1,359.14 estimate covering garage repairs, which Turcotte acknowledged was paid.
- At a March 12 restitution hearing Turcotte was not present; the Justice Court ordered Aragon to pay $1,910.86 in restitution (the difference between the two estimates).
- Aragon appealed to the District Court, which affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the restitution award was supported by substantial evidence and proper under restitution law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State / Victim) | Defendant's Argument (Aragon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim’s sworn loss statement and attached estimates sufficed to support restitution | Victim’s affidavit and its attached estimate establish pecuniary loss; rules don’t require further documentation | Aragon argued the affidavit/estimates lacked foundation, contained hearsay, and conflicted with insurer’s estimate | Court: rules of evidence don’t apply at sentencing; a victim’s affidavit can suffice, but here the conflict left no substantial evidence to support the higher amount |
| Whether the State met its preponderance burden to establish the correct restitution amount | The affidavit and estimate show $3,270 total loss; insurance covered part, leaving $1,910.86 unpaid | Aragon argued insurer’s detailed estimate contradicted repainting entire house and showed lower necessary repairs; no evidence explained difference | Held: Preponderance required; conflicting estimates without explanation mean the award is not supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the trial courts erred by accepting the Absolute Construction estimate to repaint the entire house | State relied on victim’s sworn claim that repainting entire house was necessary | Aragon contended damage was limited to the garage and insurer-repaired garage made full-house repainting unnecessary | Held: Court rejected the repainting claim as insufficiently supported by evidence before the Justice Court; remanded for determination with adequate proof |
| Whether the District Court performed required meaningful review under §3-10-115, MCA | State: District Court reviewed record and affirmed | Aragon: challenged adequacy of review and sufficiency of evidence | Held: Appellate review found no substantial evidence to support the amount and reversed restitution, remanding to Justice Court for proper determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. David C. Johnson, 254 P.3d 578 (discusses standard of review for restitution amount)
- State v. McMaster, 190 P.3d 302 (rules/statutes do not require documentation to substantiate restitution)
- State v. Benoit, 51 P.3d 495 (restitution based on reasonable methods where exact loss uncertain)
- State v. O’Connor, 212 P.3d 276 (same principle for employer-theft losses)
- State v. Jent, 299 P.3d 332 (victim affidavit can support restitution when uncontradicted; causation analysis)
- State v. Coluccio, 214 P.3d 1282 (restitution reversed where victim’s assumptions/speculation insufficient to support amount)