State v. Jacob M. Torrez, 320 P.3d 1277

Background

Kuna Skate Park disturbance reported; two men threatened parkgoers and were observed by police with slurred speech and glassy eyes, Torrez identified as one of them.
Torrez drove a vehicle after the officers warned them not to drive; vehicle later fled and was involved in a hit-and-run; the occupants were seriously injured.
Torrez pled Alford to one count of felony aggravated DUI; State dropped leaving the scene and driving without privileges; plea contemplated restitution on all charges.
At restitution hearing, State sought $82,837.61, including $79,518.55 to Ada County Indigent Services for medical services for the passenger; Torrez proposed reducing restitution via comparative negligence.
District court declined comparative negligence, applied I.C. § 19-5304(7) factors, and ordered restitution as requested by the State.
Torrez timely appealed, challenging whether Idaho’s restitution statute requires comparative negligence principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether I.C. 19-5304 requires comparative negligence in restitution	Torrez argues statute implicitly requires comparative negligence.	Torrez asserts the statute mandates reduction by victim’s own fault.	No; court may consider but is not required to apply comparative negligence.
Whether district court properly applied 19-5304(7) factors	State contends court properly weighed economic loss, defendant’s resources, needs, earning ability, and other factors.	Torrez argues court should have applied comparative negligence to reduce loss.	District court acted within discretionary bounds in considering factors and restitution amount.
Whether Ada County Indigent Services restitution was proper and causally linked to defendant’s conduct	State maintained damages were causally connected to defendant’s conduct and recoverable.	Torrez contends some losses may not be properly attributable due to causation or victim fault.	Restitution awarded for losses causally connected to defendant’s conduct; district court did not abuse discretion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Richmond, 137 Idaho 35, 43 P.3d 794 (Ct. App. 2002) (economic-loss restitution framework and deference to trial court discretion)
State v. Russell, 126 Idaho 38, 878 P.2d 212 (Ct. App. 1994) (restoration policy favoring full compensation to crime victims)
State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599, 249 P.3d 398 (2011) (causal connection required between conduct and injuries for restitution)
State v. Cottrell, 152 Idaho 387, 271 P.3d 1243 (Ct. App. 2012) (restitution tied to causal losses; civil-damages framework not mandatory)
State v. Houser, 151 Idaho 521, 314 P.3d 203 (Ct. App. 2013) (restitution and causal linkage standards; non-economic damages excluded)
State v. Nienburg, 153 Idaho 491, 283 P.3d 808 (Ct. App. 2012) (restitution requires causal relationship between defendant’s conduct and loss)
State v. Shafer, 144 Idaho 370, 161 P.3d 689 (Ct. App. 2007) (restitution scope and causation considerations in Idaho)
State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 139 P.3d 767 (Ct. App. 2006) (restitution framework and statutory factors)
State v. Waidelich, 140 Idaho 622, 97 P.3d 489 (Ct. App. 2004) (public-policy considerations in restitution decisions)
State v. Straub, 153 Idaho 882, 292 P.3d 273 (2012) (limits on civil-damages-equivalency in restitution context)
State v. Johnson, 126 Idaho 892, 894 P.2d 125 (1995) (aggravated-DUI standard; no auto-import of civil-negligence concepts)
State v. Reyes, 139 Idaho 502, 80 P.3d 1103 (Ct. App. 2003) (statutory interpretation of restitution provisions)
Millard, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (California comparative negligence in criminal restitution context (discussed for comparison))