State v. Fenner, 325 P.3d 691

Fenner assaulted Martin on May 4, 2012, punching the driver and striking him with a baton-like weapon after Fenner believed he was cut off.
Fenner pled guilty to one count of assault with a weapon and one count of criminal mischief in a September 17, 2012 plea agreement.
The PSI included Martin’s affidavit stating $6,418.33 in medical/dental expenses from the assault, with some portion paid by Martin’s insurer.
Fenner argued the insurer’s payment should offset the restitution owed to Martin to avoid double recovery.
The District Court ordered restitution in the full amount of $6,418.33, based on Martin’s affidavit and statutory framework.
The Court affirmed, holding no offset is permitted and the amount is supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fenner’s restitution should be offset by insurer payments.	State argues no offset; victim (and insurer to extent reimbursed) is entitled to full pecuniary loss.	Fenner contends insurer payment should offset the restitution amount to avoid double recovery.	No offset; full pecuniary loss restitution required.

People v. Hove, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1266 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (insurer payments do not shield defendant from full restitution)
Vortex Fishing Sys. v. Foss, 308 Mont. 8 (Mont. 2001) (employer burden; unemployment compensation not offset against back pay)
State v. Kuykendall, 136 P.3d 983 (Mont. 2006) (restitution evidenced by victim affidavit may be upheld)
State v. Charley Johnson, 265 P.3d 638 (Mont. 2011) (restitution supported by credible evidence even without insurer affidavit)
State v. Hilgers, 989 P.2d 866 (Mont. 1999) (substantial credible evidence standard for pecuniary loss)
State v. Sharp, 334 Mont. 470 (Mont. 2006) (standard of review for legality and abuse of discretion in sentencing)