State v. Carson
2017 ND 196
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Carson was arrested in possession of four rifles, ammunition, and tools two days after a residential burglary; several other items stolen in the burglary were never recovered.
- She was charged with six counts alleging either unauthorized taking or possession of stolen property; she pled guilty to six counts of possession of the specific items found on her.
- The items she possessed were returned to the victim; the State sought restitution for a broader set of burglary-related losses (unrecovered items, trailer damage, costs to retrieve a vehicle, keys/remotes, rekeying locks, etc.).
- After an evidentiary hearing the district court ordered Carson to pay $8,072.84 in restitution, covering items and damages from the burglary beyond the items to which she admitted possession.
- Carson appealed, arguing restitution for damages caused by the burglary exceeded statutory limits because she was convicted only of possession of stolen property, not burglary or theft by taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may include damages directly resulting from a burglary when the defendant was convicted only of possession of stolen property | The close temporal proximity (possession two days after burglary) permits an inference Carson was involved in the taking, so she should bear restitution for all burglary losses | Carson argued restitution must be limited to damages directly resulting from the offense of conviction (possession), not broader burglary losses for which she was not convicted | Reversed: restitution limited to damages directly related to the offense of conviction; ordering restitution for burglary losses exceeded statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gill, 681 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2004) (standard of review for restitution—district court must act within statutory limits; review akin to abuse of discretion)
- State v. Pippin, 496 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1993) (restitution must be for damages directly related to the offense of conviction; possession conviction did not support restitution for unrelated burglary losses)
- State v. Hogie, 454 N.W.2d 501 (N.D. 1990) (unexplained possession of recently stolen property can support an incriminating inference in assessing guilt)
- State v. Nakvinda, 807 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 2011) (review of sufficiency of evidence considers whether competent evidence allows reasonable inference of guilt)