State v. Becker
2018 UT App 81
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Becker attacked Victim with a shovel, striking him in the throat and head; Victim sustained neck, head injuries and a hand laceration. Becker pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated assault and agreed to pay restitution as part of a plea-in-abeyance.
- The State sought $663.01 in restitution based on a Utah Office for Victims of Crimes (UOVC) reparations payment for a “Medically Necessary Device.” The UOVC requested reimbursement.
- Victim did not appear at two restitution hearings; the State offered Victim’s handwritten note listing a $39 eye exam and $624 eyeglasses as the basis for the UOVC payment, but produced no receipts, medical records, or testimony linking those items to the assault.
- The district court initially questioned the sufficiency of the documentation, held a second hearing, then ordered restitution of $663.01, concluding there was sufficient foundation and nexus between Becker’s conduct and the damages.
- Becker appealed, arguing the State failed to establish a causal connection between his criminal conduct and Victim’s alleged eye-related damages. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the State met its burden to prove causation for restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Becker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved that Victim’s eye exam/eyeglasses were caused by Becker’s assault | The UOVC paid for a medically necessary device based on Victim’s note; that payment justifies restitution | Handwritten note + UOVC form are insufficient; no evidence or testimony linking eyeglasses/exam to the assault | Reversed: State failed to prove causation; restitution vacated |
| Whether hearsay/non‑trial evidence may support restitution | Rules of evidence do not apply; hearsay may be admitted to meet the State’s burden | Even allowing hearsay, the offered evidence lacked foundation and nexus to the assault | Rejected State: admissibility alone insufficient without nexus evidence |
| Standard for causation in restitution proceedings | UOVC payment shifts burden / supports restitution | State must still prove that the defendant’s criminal activity caused the economic injury | Proximate-cause standard controls; State did not satisfy it |
| Whether Becker’s due-process/right to confrontation was violated by lack of live testimony | State argued plea waived confrontation rights; restitution hearing is civil-like | Becker argued he had right to confront Victim/UOVC to contest causation | Court did not resolve due-process claim (vacated restitution on causation grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 221 P.3d 273 (Utah Ct. App.) (State must prove victim suffered economic injury that arose from defendant’s criminal activity)
- Dee v. Johnson, 286 P.3d 22 (Utah Ct. App.) (definition of proximate cause: natural and continuous sequence producing the injury)
- Raab v. Utah Ry. Co., 221 P.3d 219 (Utah) (proximate cause as legal cause; foreseeability element)
- State v. Weeks, 61 P.3d 1000 (Utah) (rules of evidence do not strictly apply in restitution proceedings; hearsay may be considered)
- State v. Poulsen, 288 P.3d 601 (Utah Ct. App.) (restitution awarded only where liability and causality are clear as a matter of law)
- State v. Corbitt, 82 P.3d 211 (Utah Ct. App.) (standard of review for restitution orders)