347 P.3d 241
Mont.2015Background
- Barrick was convicted by a jury of Criminal Mischief and Cruelty to Animals for fatally shooting the Tuss family's dog.
- At sentencing, the Tuss Family sought $9,357.14 in restitution for dog replacement, medical bills, lost wages, and travel expenses.
- Barrick moved to produce records (medical records, tax returns, pay stubs, employment information) but the district court denied.
- A restitution hearing heard testimony from Brett, Ann, and Anika Tuss about losses including medical treatment and time spent cooperating with prosecution.
- The district court determined the medical expenses were related to the offenses and awarded lost wages for time spent in prosecution, ordering Barrick to pay the full $9,357.14.
- The court later remanded for entry of an amended judgment after appellate ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost wages are recoverable as pecuniary loss | Barrick contends lost wages are not recoverable as out-of-pocket expenses. | Barrick asserts lost wages are not recoverable under § 46-18-243(1)(d) or as out-of-pocket losses. | Lost wages are not recoverable under the statute on these facts. |
| Whether medical bills were recoverable as pecuniary loss | Tuss Family contends medical bills arise from the offense and are recoverable. | Barrick argues no causal link to medical expenses from the dog’s death. | Medical bills arose out of the criminal conduct and are recoverable. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Barrick's discovery motion | Barrick sought broad records to challenge wage claim. | Court should allow discovery to prepare cross-examination; denial was an abuse of discretion. | No abuse; denial was within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Good, 2004 MT 296 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2004) (restitution for an out-of-pocket expense recoverable where civil action could be pursued)
- State v. Kalal, 2009 MT 103 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2009) (restitution based on civil law damages available for a victim)
- State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2009) (expenses recoverable if could be recovered in a civil action)
- State v. Pritchett, 2000 MT 261 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2000) (reversal when damages not recoverable in civil action)
- MC, Inc. v. City-County Bd. of Health, 2015 MT 52 (Mont. Supreme Court, 2015) (interpretation of operative definition with ‘including without limitation’ style list)