State v. Bruce, 2018 ND 45

Background

In July 2015 Aaron Bruce’s conduct led to Aidan Vanderhoef’s death; Bruce was charged with multiple crimes and pled guilty in March 2017 to negligent homicide and drug offenses under a plea agreement.
The district court sentenced Bruce and left restitution open for 90 days.
At a May 2017 restitution hearing the State sought $6,165 (funeral), $500 (victim’s cell phone), and $492.20 (father’s travel to court).
The district court ordered total restitution of $7,157.20 and entered an amended criminal judgment.
Bruce appealed, arguing the court erred in awarding funeral expenses paid by insurance, travel costs for the victim’s father, and that the court failed to consider Bruce’s inability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether funeral expenses are recoverable where the victim’s funeral was paid by life insurance	Funeral expenses are reasonable damages directly resulting from defendant’s crime and thus recoverable	No expense was "actually incurred" by the family because insurance paid the bill; restitution inappropriate	Court affirmed restitution for funeral expenses; insurance receipt did not negate that expense was incurred as direct result of crime
Whether victim’s father’s travel to court is recoverable as restitution	Travel costs were actually incurred and would not have occurred but for the crime; constitutional victim-rights and statute support recovery	Travel is not a statutory category of damages and is not plainly recoverable	Court held travel expenses were recoverable here—direct result of the crime and reasonable under statute and victim-rights provisions
Whether court considered Bruce’s ability to pay	State argued the court considered future ability to pay and may impose restitution payable after release	Bruce claimed he currently lacks assets and cannot pay while incarcerated	Court found defendant bore burden to prove inability to pay, court considered ability to pay and did not abuse discretion in setting restitution payable post-release
Whether restitution for victim’s cell phone was proper	State sought $500 for phone theft	Bruce disputed or challenged the claim	Bruce conceded this issue on appeal; court did not address further and treated restitution as reasonable

Key Cases Cited

State v. Carson, 900 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 2017) (standards for reviewing restitution and limits on damages)
State v. Putney, 881 N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 2016) (district court may order restitution after a hearing)
State v. Bingaman, 655 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2002) (funeral and medical expenses are direct result of defendant’s actions)
People v. Crisler, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (parents’ trial-related travel and lost-wage expenses recoverable as direct result of murder)
State v. Moos, 758 N.W.2d 674 (N.D. 2008) (restitution may commence after release from prison)
State v. Tupa, 691 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 2005) (defendant bears burden to raise and prove inability to pay)