State v. Gates
865 N.W.2d 816
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Joan Gates, as personal representative of the Estate of Lela Gates, was convicted by a jury of misapplication of entrusted property; the district court initially ordered $23,537.72 in restitution at sentencing and reserved additional restitution for later.
- After a post-trial restitution hearing, the court issued an amended restitution order for a total of $93,257.74 to the estate’s personal representative, Mark Westereng.
- The amended award included three categories: improper expenditures from estate accounts, proceeds from stock sales, and oil-check proceeds, plus related fees.
- Gates contested the factual basis for several items (claimed some funds were deposited to estate accounts or otherwise accounted for) and filed a post-conviction relief application, which the district court denied.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding specific restitution items and whether the ordered total duplicated prior restitution.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Gates' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for restitution | Restitution order is within district court discretion and should be upheld if supported by evidence | Same standard applies; challenges must show abuse of discretion | Court applies abuse-of-discretion standard and evidentiary burden on State by preponderance |
| Oil-check proceeds ($2,742.51) | Checks for Crooks oil well were issued while Gates was PR and are unaccounted for; restitution appropriate | Gates says checks were deposited and used to pay estate bills | Court upheld restitution for these amounts—State met burden; Gates failed to show deposits covered all checks |
| Stock sale proceeds ($46,857.51) | Proceeds were unaccounted for and therefore compensable restitution | Gates showed deposit records and argued proceeds were deposited and used by the estate | Court reversed this portion: record showed deposits were made to estate accounts; no evidence they were misappropriated, so amounts removed from restitution |
| Improper expenditures ($37,757.72) | Westereng identified suspicious/unknown withdrawals from estate accounts supporting restitution | Gates disputed characterization of some items; produced evidence on some transactions | Court upheld most improper-expenditure awards but found the $7,250 "weed spraying" check was never cashed and should not be included |
| Double recovery / total amount ordered | State treated amended order as replacing earlier restitution | Gates argued original $23,537.72 was being re-ordered in addition to new amounts | Court found the amended order replaced, not duplicated, prior restitution; no double recovery |
| Post-conviction relief denial | State urged dismissal | Gates sought relief on restitution and trial issues | Supreme Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bingaman, 655 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2002) (explains standard for reviewing restitution decisions)
- State v. Kleppe, 800 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion framework and State’s burden to prove restitution amount)
- State v. Gendron, 747 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 2008) (district court has wide discretion in restitution awards; evidentiary imprecision does not bar recovery)
- Keller v. Bolding, 678 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2004) (damages may be awarded despite evidentiary imprecision)
- B.W.S. Invs. v. Mid-Am Restaurants, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1990) (amount of damages in difficult-to-prove contexts is for factfinder to decide)
Disposition
The Supreme Court modified the restitution order: it removed the stock-sale proceeds ($46,857.51) and the uncasherd $7,250 check from the award and directed the amended total restitution to be $39,150.23. The denial of Gates’ application for post-conviction relief was affirmed.