State v. Bartels, 1 CA-CR 19-0660

On January 14, 2017, Bartels ambushed and fatally shot R.Z.; police later found R.Z.'s car had scratched paint and punctured tires.
A folding knife found in Bartels' vehicle matched the width of the tire punctures; black strands were found in the knife handle; police considered further comparative analysis but did not complete it.
Police impounded R.Z.'s vehicle as evidence and retained it for two years while the investigation and prosecution proceeded.
When released to R.Z.'s family the car lacked any tires and required an oil change and new battery; the family sought $792.57 in restitution to make the vehicle drivable.
Bartels was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and first-degree burglary; the superior court ordered restitution including the vehicle repairs.
On appeal Bartels argued the impound delay (and resulting repairs) were not directly caused by his criminal conduct and therefore not recoverable as restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution for costs to make the impounded vehicle drivable is recoverable when the vehicle deteriorated during a two-year state impound	The State: retention of the car flowed from the need to preserve evidence (to link the knife to the tire punctures and to identify the killer); thus damages were a direct, reasonable consequence of the crime	Bartels: the two-year impound and resulting damage were caused by the State's decision and delay, an intervening factor not directly attributable to his criminal conduct	Affirmed. The court held the impound and retention were undertaken to further the murder investigation, so the resulting repair costs were reasonably found to flow directly from Bartels' criminal conduct and therefore recoverable as restitution

State v. Linares, 241 Ariz. 416 (App. 2017) (reasonableness is the key restitution inquiry; courts must avoid awarding restitution for losses that are too attenuated)
State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz. 321 (App. 2009) (appellate review views facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to upholding restitution)
State v. Leal, 248 Ariz. 1 (App. 2019) (defendant must make restitution in the full amount of the economic loss as determined by the court)
State v. Madrid, 207 Ariz. 296 (App. 2004) (three restitution requirements: economic loss; but-for causation; criminal conduct must directly cause the loss)
State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (App. 2002) (restitution appropriate for damages that flow directly from defendant's criminal conduct absent intervening causes)
State v. Burr, 126 Ariz. 338 (1980) (standard for finding "clearly erroneous")
State v. Lindsley, 191 Ariz. 195 (App. 1997) (trial court may reasonably infer that damage was a direct result of defendant's conduct and award restitution)
Palermo v. Warden, 545 F.2d 286 (2d Cir. 1976) (articulates federal standard for a finding being "clearly erroneous")