State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648

Background

On Jan. 8, 2013, Taylor Arnett lent her mother’s car to two men who then committed multiple burglaries, causing over $50,000 in losses; Arnett received $200 that evening.
Arnett pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary; other charges were not pursued.
At sentencing the district court imposed probation and later held a restitution hearing; the State sought $33,248.83 (loss, out-of-pocket expenses, and damage).
The district court ordered Arnett jointly and severally liable for the full restitution amount, finding she aided and abetted by providing the vehicle.
On appeal Arnett raised constitutional and evidentiary challenges; after briefing she submitted a Rule 6.09(b) letter arguing a legal bar to imposing restitution for crimes (theft, burglary) she was not convicted of.
The Court of Appeals vacated restitution, holding conspiracy did not "directly" cause the damages; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Arnett)	Held
Whether conspiracy conviction may support restitution for losses caused by related burglaries/thefts	Restitution statute permits ordering restitution for "damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime," including foreseeable losses set in motion by the defendant	Arnett argued she should only pay $200 she received and (in Rule 6.09(b) letter) that conspiracy cannot be basis for restitution for damages from burglaries/thefts she was not convicted of	Conspiracy can support restitution if proximate-cause elements (cause-in-fact and legal causation) are satisfied; statutory text does not require a "direct" causal link
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly required a "direct" causal link	N/A (challenged Court of Appeals' legal reading)	Argued Court of Appeals erred and her new theory was preserved	Court of Appeals misinterpreted statute by reading in a "directly" requirement; proximate-cause standard controls
Preservation: whether Arnett preserved the causation argument for appeal	State argued Arnett abandoned and failed to brief the issue; Rule 6.09(b) letter cannot raise new issues	Arnett relied on earlier district-court argument and later cited Miller in Rule 6.09(b) letter	Court found Arnett abandoned the causation argument on appeal but exercised discretion to reach the merits because parties briefed the issue here
Whether remand is required to re-evaluate restitution under proximate-cause standard	State urged reversal of Court of Appeals and affirmance of restitution	Arnett urged vacatur and constitutional/evidentiary relief (left for appellate resolution)	Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals and remanded to Court of Appeals to consider Arnett's preserved constitutional and evidentiary claims (did not disturb district court factual findings)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hand, 297 Kan. 734 (court rejected requirement that loss be "directly" caused by crime)
State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (reiterating no statutory "directly" modifier for restitution causation)
State v. Alcala, 301 Kan. 832 (upholding restitution where defendant set in motion a foreseeable chain reaction)
Puckett v. Mt. Carmel Regional Med. Ctr., 290 Kan. 406 (proximate-cause elements: cause-in-fact and legal causation in civil context)
State v. Bell, 258 Kan. 123 (discussing appellate review of issues not raised below when court grants review)
State v. Holt, 305 Kan. 839 (standard of review for factual findings on causal link for restitution)
State v. Shank, 304 Kan. 89 (same; cited for causal-link review standard)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (considering statutory interpretation against legal tradition regarding causation)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (raised by defendant on appeal concerning constitutional limits; left for further appellate consideration)