State v. England, 2017 UT App 170

Background

Victim bought a 1995 Eagle Talon for $2,500 and over ~2 years paid Mechanic about $9,000 for custom modifications; the car was at the shop for repairs and modification work when England acquired the shop.
The engine had been removed for rebuilding and was not installed when England sold the car to a salvage yard for $300 without Victim’s consent.
England was charged with theft (pleaded guilty) and ordered to pay restitution; the State originally sought $13,402.76 but later shifted to requesting $3,500 plus costs of installed modifications (the State conceded uninstalled parts should not be included).
At the restitution hearing, evidence included Victim’s purchase price, Kelley Blue Book estimates for a non-modified Talon, Mechanic’s estimates (including a $3,500 figure for the car with modifications but no engine), and an itemized list showing $5,777.87 paid for installed modifications.
The district court awarded $8,277.87 (Victim’s $2,500 purchase price + $5,777.87 for installed modifications) and excluded payment for uninstalled parts; England appealed the restitution calculation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper measure of restitution for stolen car and installed improvements	State: compensate victim for value to owner — use purchase price plus cost to replace installed modifications	England: restitution should be fair market value of the car as sold (salvage sale $300) or at most $3,500 (Mechanic’s estimate)	Court: restitution must compensate victim but cannot include value of property not taken; purchase-price approach can be appropriate here for owner-specific loss but must account for missing engine
Whether the salvage yard sale ($300) establishes fair market value	State: salvage sale did not reflect value to true owner; not reliable	England: $300 was the amount a willing buyer paid and thus fair market value	Court: $300 rejected — sale occurred under circumstances (no title, defendant’s instruction to dispose) that did not reflect a willing buyer/true-owner transaction
Whether Mechanic’s $3,500 estimate was an appropriate fair market valuation	State: asked court to adopt a value higher than $300 and include replacement cost of installed mods	England: $3,500 is a fair market value for the car with modifications but without engine	Court: $3,500 rejected as it reflected an urgent/abandoned-sale hypothetical, not the price between willing buyer and true owner
Whether restitution can include value of items not actually taken (the engine)	State: sought full purchase-price-based restitution effectively including engine	England: court should not require payment for items England did not steal	Held: Court erred by awarding full purchase price without deducting engine value; engine not stolen and must be treated like other uninstalled parts — vacation and remand for recalculation

Key Cases Cited

Winters v. Charles Anthony, Inc., 586 P.2d 453 (Utah 1978) (market-value rule for conversion and value-to-owner principle for unique chattels)
State v. Ludlow, 353 P.3d 179 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (purchase price may be appropriate when market value is unavailable; market-value measure flexible but not for items with clear market)
State v. Corbitt, 82 P.3d 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (restitution may be based on purchase price where it better reflects victim’s loss)
State v. Greene, 147 P.3d 957 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing sales that do not reflect value to true owner)
State v. Mast, 40 P.3d 1143 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (restitution cannot require defendant to pay for items not stolen)
Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017 (Utah 1996) (restitution limited to amount necessary to compensate victim)
State v. Irwin, 379 P.3d 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (restitution should not grant a windfall; must be compensatory)
Laycock v. State, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (district courts must make complete-restitution and court-ordered restitution determinations)