State v. Grant, 499 P.3d 176

Defendant Gerald R. Grant entered an SUV to buy marijuana; soon after he exited the vehicle three occupants (Mateo, Marcus, Roman) were found with fatal gunshot wounds.
Grant pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter (imperfect self-defense) with weapon enhancements and acknowledged restitution might be ordered.
District court heard evidence (texts, witness statements, medical examiner and shooting-reconstruction reports, and Rule 404(b) evidence of prior planned robberies) and found Grant planned and initiated a robbery, pulled his gun first, and was fully at fault.
The court ordered "complete restitution" for funeral, counseling, lost-income claims for the victims’ parents, and Medicaid/ORS reimbursement for emergency care, but deferred determination of court-ordered restitution to the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole.
Grant appealed the restitution order, arguing: (1) the court should have apportioned fault to the deceased, (2) the court plainly erred by awarding deceased parents’ lost income, and (3) the court erred by deferring court-ordered restitution to the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Grant)	Held
Whether the court should allocate comparative fault to the deceased for restitution	No — victims did not contribute to their deaths; Grant caused the deaths and bears full fault	Victims participated in and brought weapons to an illegal drug deal and therefore contributed to their deaths; some fault should be apportioned	Court affirmed: evidence supported finding Grant bore all fault; refusal to apportion fault was not an abuse of discretion
Whether awarding deceased parents’ lost income as restitution was plain error	Recoverable — statute permits lost-income restitution where the offense resulted in bodily injury to a victim (the deceased)	Not recoverable — the parents themselves suffered only emotional injury, not bodily injury, so lost income should not be compensable	Court held no plain error: statute ambiguous on whether third‑party (parents) lost income is barred; the court’s award stands
Whether the district court may defer determination of court-ordered restitution to the Board	Board may determine restitution for pecuniary damages not determined by the court; Board involvement is permissible	Statute requires the district court itself to determine both complete restitution and court-ordered restitution; the court erred by delegating that determination	Court reversed and remanded: district court must determine court-ordered restitution (cannot defer that obligation to the Board)

State v. Ogden, 416 P.3d 1132 (Utah 2018) (discusses restitution duties and distinguishes complete restitution from court-ordered restitution)
State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (district courts must determine complete restitution and separately decide court-ordered restitution)
State v. Mooers, 424 P.3d 1 (Utah 2017) (court-ordered restitution is a subset of complete restitution and may account for defendant’s ability to pay)
State v. Wadsworth, 393 P.3d 338 (Utah 2017) (lost income is available only if the offense resulted in bodily injury to a victim)
State v. Oliver, 427 P.3d 495 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (proximate-cause standard applies to restitution causation)
Graves v. North Eastern Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (discusses apportionment of fault in intentional tort contexts)
Raab v. Utah Ry. Co., 221 P.3d 219 (Utah 2009) (explains proximate cause as requiring more than but-for causation)
Hale v. Beckstead, 116 P.3d 263 (Utah 2005) (discusses recovery against defendants whose fault exceeds claimant’s fault)
Biesele v. Mattena, 449 P.3d 1 (Utah 2019) (addresses comparative-fault allocation principles)