State v. Hall
297 Kan. 709
Kan.2013Background
- Pamela Sue Hall, employed two months at an animal clinic, altered computer records and stole clinic inventory; convicted of computer crime and theft.
- Verified missing inventory retail value presented at restitution hearing: $9,645.82; wholesale cost for verified missing items: $4,523.50.
- Clinic owner testified to some actual lost sales (profit ~$70) and that certain items were used in clinic (priced at cost) or untracked/replaced by suppliers.
- District court awarded restitution using retail value for stolen inventory; total restitution ordered $14,293.11.
- Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding wholesale cost was the proper measure as a matter of law; State sought review.
- Kansas Supreme Court affirmed vacatur of restitution order (for different reasons) and remanded for a new restitution hearing, directing district court to consider all relevant evidence and exercise discretion in determining actual loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of loss for restitution for stolen inventory | State: sentencing court has discretion; not limited to wholesale — may use retail or other measures to fully compensate victim | Hall: retail value overcompensates; wholesale cost reflects actual loss and should be used as matter of law | No bright-line rule; measure depends on facts—district court must determine amount that compensates actual loss and may consider retail, wholesale, and other factors |
| Standard of review for restitution amount | State: discretionary factual determination; abuse of discretion review | Hall: Court of Appeals treated issue as legal question | Court: restitution amount is fact-dependent; abuse of discretion applies but legal questions reviewed de novo; district court’s factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence |
| Whether statute requires fair market/wholesale value | State: statute does not mandate specific measure; court may award beyond fair market value | Hall/Ct of Appeals: wholesale (cost) is required measure for inventory loss | Statute does not impose a hard-and-fast measure; fair market or wholesale may be appropriate but not mandatory |
| Whether district court abused discretion by using retail value | State: district court failed to weigh all evidence; award neither wholesale nor retail necessarily correct without factfinding | Hall: retail award was excessive and caused windfall | Court: district court abused discretion by simply adopting retail amount; remand for full consideration of evidence to reach defensible restitution figure |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57 (recognizing wholesale may be the accurate measure where retail yields windfall)
- State v. Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655 (restitution review standards and requirement of reliable evidence)
- State v. Applegate, 266 Kan. 1072 (restitution must compensate actual loss caused by crime)
- State v. Baxter, 34 Kan. App. 2d 364 (fair market value as usual standard for restitution in property cases)