State v. Brent W. Higley, 253 P.3d 750

Higley was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery for a Maverik store robbery; Hainline suffered a gunpoint incident and later quit Maverik due to PTSD symptoms, seeking counseling and transforming employment to Wal-Mart and then Burger King; Hainline testified he could not focus at Maverik after the robbery and sought new work; counselor advised leaving Maverik and seeking different employment; district court awarded Hainline $2,665.88 in restitution for lost wages between leaving Maverik and starting at Burger King; Higley appealed the restitution order as an error in law and fact.
Hainline’s lost wages were awarded for the period after leaving Maverik and before securing Burger King employment; restitution analyzed under I.C. § 19-5304 and case law guiding recovery of economic losses; district court found loss due to emotional distress/PTSD symptoms and counselor recommendations; court distinguished from purely preventative costs noted in Gonzales and Waidelich; appeal focuses on whether such lost wages constitute “economic loss.”
Congressional and statutory framework for restitution emphasizes actual economic loss, excludes noneconomic damages like pain and suffering or emotional distress, and allows recovery to avoid civil action where appropriate; the court’s discretion is bounded by I.C. § 19-5304; here the court determined the lost wages were economic loss directly arising from the incident and not purely preventative in nature.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lost wages qualify as economic loss under I.C. § 19-5304	Hainline’s losses were due to emotional distress and preventative steps, not direct economic loss	Hainline’s quitting caused present, not future, economic loss attributable to the crime	Yes, restitution for lost wages was proper under statute
Whether the court erred by relying on PTSD symptoms without a formal diagnosis	No Requirement for formal PTSD diagnosis; symptoms linked to the robbery justify relief	Lack of formal diagnosis undermines factual basis	Insufficient to overturn; substantial evidence supported finding of PTSD-related impact
Whether counselor’s recommendation to quit Maverik was a recoverable economic loss	Losses were due to symptoms, not preventative measures; not barred by Gonzales/Waidelich	Preventative actions are generally non-recoverable	Distinguishable; record shows recommendation due to symptoms, not purely preventative after the fact

State v. Gonzales, 144 Idaho 775 (Ct. App. 2007) (restitution limited to actual economic loss; excludes noneconomic damages)
State v. Taie, 138 Idaho 878 (Ct. App. 2003) (restoration of victim losses within statutory boundaries)
State v. Schultz, 148 Idaho 884 (Ct. App. 2008) (trial court’s restitution discretion; must be supported by substantial evidence)
State v. Smith, 144 Idaho 687 (Ct. App. 2007) (restoration framework and standards)
State v. Cheeney, 144 Idaho 294 (Ct. App. 2007) (restitution boundaries under I.C. § 19-5304)
State v. Waidelich, 140 Idaho 622 (Ct. App. 2004) (restitution for preventative costs not recoverable)
State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165 (Ct. App. 2006) (hand-in-hand with economic loss concept in restitution)
State v. Richmond, 137 Idaho 35 (Ct. App. 2002) (restitution framework within statutory limits)