State v. Hunt, 927 N.W.2d 412

Defendant Javonne Hunt was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after intentionally striking an opposing basketball player, causing a fractured jaw.
The injured individual incurred $3,233.07 in out-of-pocket medical expenses; Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) paid an additional $27,501.86 under the injured person’s insurance.
At sentencing the district court ordered Hunt to pay $30,734.93 in restitution: the conceded $3,233.07 plus $27,501.86 to BCBS under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1).
Hunt appealed, arguing the North Dakota Constitution’s definition of “victim” (N.D. Const. art. I, § 25) restricts restitution to individuals and thus precludes a corporation (BCBS) from recovering under the criminal restitution statute.
The district court harmonized the statute and the constitutional provision and awarded restitution to BCBS; the Supreme Court reviewed the legal question de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a corporation (an insurance company) may recover restitution under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1) despite N.D. Const. art. I, § 25’s definition of “victim”	State: The statute permits restitution to an “other recipient,” which includes insurers; this can be harmonized with the Constitution	Hunt: Article I, § 25 limits “victim” to individuals and thus bars corporate recovery; Strom renders § 12.1-32-08 inoperative insofar as it conflicts with the Constitution	Court: Affirmed restitution to BCBS; § 12.1-32-08 and art. I, § 25 can be harmonized so insurers may recover as “other recipient[s]”

State v. Vick, 587 N.W.2d 567 (1998) (insurance companies qualify as “other recipient[s]” under § 12.1-32-08 and may recover restitution)
State v. Strom, 921 N.W.2d 660 (2019) (court held a defendant’s ability to pay may not be considered in fixing the amount of restitution awarded to a victim)
Interest of Goodwin, 366 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1985) (principle of avoiding constitutional confrontations when alternative grounds exist)