State v. Harstad, 945 N.W.2d 265

Harstad pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle; she was not charged with the vehicle’s theft.
When the vehicle was stolen, several items of the victim’s personal property were inside; those items were unrecovered by the time Harstad was arrested seven days later.
The State sought restitution for towing, missing gas, a license plate, and the unrecovered personal property; Harstad agreed to towing, gas, and plate but contested restitution for the unrecovered items.
The district court ordered $2,104 in restitution, which included the value of the unrecovered personal property.
Harstad appealed, arguing there was no immediate and intimate causal connection between her possession of the stolen vehicle and the loss of the unrecovered personal property.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing restitution be recalculated excluding the unrecovered personal property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may include unrecovered personal property that was in a vehicle when it was stolen, where defendant was convicted only of possessing the stolen vehicle	Restitution is appropriate because the unrecovered items were in the vehicle when stolen, allowing a reasonable inference of connection to defendant’s possession	No immediate and intimate causal connection exists between possession of the stolen vehicle and loss of other unrecovered property; restitution for those items exceeds statutory limits	Reversed: restitution for unrecovered property in the stolen vehicle was not sufficiently directly related to Harstad’s possession conviction and must be excluded

State v. Pippin, 496 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1993) (possession conviction does not support restitution for unrecovered property from a burglary committed by others; requires immediate and intimate causal connection)
State v. Walker, 936 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 2019) (restitution may cover damage to the specific stolen property that was the basis of the offense)
State v. Carson, 900 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 2017) (§ 12.1-32-08 requires awarding "reasonable damages sustained by the victim" directly related to the offense)
State v. Kostelecky, 906 N.W.2d 77 (N.D. 2018) (constitutional right to restitution does not expand statutory limits on restitution)