State v. Christina Rose Wisdom, 161 Idaho 916

Background

Christina Wisdom pled guilty to permitting her husband to continuedly access her daughter M.L. after M.L. disclosed prior sexual abuse; Wisdom admitted she told M.L. to be silent and did not intervene, and the abuse continued until 2013.
Ronald Wisdom was separately convicted of lewd conduct and ordered to pay $11,069.82 in restitution for M.L.’s counseling, payable to Idaho Medicaid State Operations (IMSO).
At Christina Wisdom’s sentencing the State sought joint-and-several restitution for the same $11,069.82; Wisdom objected on causation and inability to pay grounds, but the district court imposed restitution.
The Court of Appeals vacated the restitution award for lack of causation; the State petitioned for review to the Idaho Supreme Court.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether IMSO qualifies as a victim (not preserved), whether the State proved causation, and whether the award was an abuse of discretion given Wisdom’s ability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IMSO is a "victim" eligible for restitution	IMSO is the payee for counseling costs and thus a victim entitled to restitution	Wisdom: no evidence IMSO is a statutory "victim"; challenge to award	Not addressed on merits — issue waived by Wisdom (not preserved); fundamental-error doctrine inapplicable to civil restitution proceedings
Whether State proved causation between Wisdom’s conduct and M.L.’s counseling costs	State: guilty plea + presentence report show Wisdom’s failure to act was a substantial/proximate cause of continuing abuse and resulting counseling	Wisdom: causation speculative; some abuse occurred before she knew, so not "but-for" cause	Affirmed: record (guilty plea and presentence materials) supplies substantial evidence; substantial-factor test applies and supports causation
Whether restitution award was abuse of discretion given Wisdom’s inability to pay	State: statute allows consideration of foreseeable future ability to pay; presentence report shows employability	Wisdom: cannot repay; award should be vacated	Affirmed: district court reasonably found foreseeable ability to pay; immediate inability is not dispositive under I.C. § 19-5304(7)
Whether restitution procedure required additional sworn evidence from State	State: presentence report and plea suffice for causation-based restitution (distinct from expense accounting under other statutes)	Wisdom: more concrete evidence required (relying on other cases)	Affirmed: cases requiring sworn accounting limited to statutes requiring "expenses actually incurred"; those do not control causation showing here

Key Cases Cited

State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599 (discussing district court discretion and restitution standards)
State v. Lampien, 148 Idaho 367 (causation under restitution statute follows tort principles)
State v. McNeil, 158 Idaho 280 (vacating restitution where counseling preceded crime; speculative proof insufficient)
State v. Mosqueda, 150 Idaho 830 (restitution proceedings are civil; fundamental-error doctrine inapplicable)
State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541 (upholding restitution despite defendant's future-only ability to pay; victim access to judgment)
State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223 (definition and limits of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (articulation of the fundamental error doctrine)
State v. Schall, 157 Idaho 488 (standard on appellate review of Court of Appeals opinions)
State v. Straub, 153 Idaho 882 (substantial-evidence standard for restitution findings)
Swallow v. Emergency Med. of Idaho, P.A., 138 Idaho 589 (abuse-of-discretion framework)