State v. Linares
388 P.3d 566
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Jeronimo Linares convicted by jury of one count of child abuse (class 4 felony); sentenced to probation and ordered to pay $550 in restitution to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO).
- Preschool observed bruises on a child; police referred the child for a forensic medical exam at the Mesa Family Advocacy Center.
- Nurse JB, a Phoenix Children’s Hospital employee who conducts forensic exams under contract with MCAO, performed the exam and prepared a report used in prosecution.
- The Phoenix Children’s Hospital charged MCAO a flat $550 fee for forensic evaluations used in criminal cases; MCAO sought reimbursement of that fee as restitution.
- JB’s exam documented bruises and concluded abuse was likely but did not provide medical treatment or prescribe care; recommendations were investigatory/follow-up in nature.
- Superior court ordered restitution; on appeal the court reviewed whether such investigatory/forensic costs are recoverable restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCAO may recover $550 forensic-exam fee as restitution | MCAO: fee reimburses hospital costs for an exam that directly resulted from the crime and was necessary for prosecution | Linares: the fee funds a routine investigatory function of MCAO and is not a victim’s economic loss | Court vacated restitution; fee is investigatory/routine and too attenuated from the crime |
| Whether MCAO qualifies as a “victim” for restitution purposes | MCAO: incurred an economic loss used to investigate/prosecute the crime | Linares: MCAO is not the crime’s victim (disputed below) | Court did not decide victim status; resolved on attenuation/routine-cost ground |
| Whether costs that are part of routine investigation are recoverable | MCAO: costs would not have been incurred but for the crime — therefore recoverable | Linares: routine investigative costs are normal government expenses, not compensable restitution | Court held investigative/routine costs are too attenuated; restitution limited to extraordinary direct costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guilliams, 208 Ariz. 48 (App. 2004) (distinguishes extraordinary direct costs from routine investigatory costs for restitution)
- State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz. 321 (App. 2009) (explains restitution elements: economic loss, caused by criminal conduct, directness requirement)
- State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (App. 2002) (defendant liable only for expenses that flow directly from criminal conduct without additional causative factors)
- In re J.U., 241 Ariz. 839 (App. 2016) (denied reimbursement for routine police travel expenses to testify; illustrates limits on restitution for routine governmental costs)