State v. Hand
297 Kan. 734
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Hand pled to burglary and theft; restitution ordered for $1,862.74, with $1,285 to Schulze, including a $1,035 premium surcharge from a theft claim.
- The district court found the premium increase was directly caused by Hand’s crime and ordered it included in restitution.
- A majority of the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, reversing the restitution approach.
- The State petitioned for review; Hand is deceased, but Kansas law permits merits review of post-conviction issues.
- Statute at issue: K.S.A. 21-4610(d) requires restitution for damage or loss caused by the crime, with court-determined amount.
- Key issue is whether fair market value must govern restitution first and whether insurance premiums can be included as loss caused by the crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must fair market value be the starting point for restitution | State: FMV must be the baseline before other factors. | Hand: FMV-first approach is required and other losses follow from it. | FMV is not the sole starting point; other loss measures may be considered with causation. |
| Whether insurance premium increases can be included in restitution | State: premium surge is a loss caused by the crime and recoverable. | Hand: premium increases are indirect/remote damages not recoverable. | Premium increase can be included if substantial evidence shows causation by the crime. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 36 Kan. App. 2d 228 (2006) (restitution requires weighing facts to determine actual loss; not fixed to FMV)
- State v. Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655 (2002) (illustrates recovery limits for tangential costs and required causation)
- State v. Rhodes, 31 Kan. App. 2d 1040 (2003) (same principle of considering factors beyond FMV for actual loss)
- State v. Allen, 260 Kan. 107 (1996) (restitution includes non-FMV components and requires causal link)
- State v. Chambers, 36 Kan. App. 2d 228 (2006) (FMV is typical but not exclusive measure of loss for restitution)
- State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578 (2003) (discusses standards for factual review of causation in restitution)