State v. Ludlow
2015 UT App 146
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Naomi Ludlow pleaded guilty to theft after items were taken from a vehicle; a related vehicle-burglary charge was dismissed.
- Victim testified at restitution hearing about multiple stolen items (laptop, iPod, smartphone, amp, subwoofers, stereo deck, cash, clothing) and gave purchase/retail prices but did not provide evidence of depreciation or fair market value.
- Some items (stereo deck and part of clothing) were returned; the court reduced restitution by $350 to account for returned items.
- The prosecutor presented no evidence connecting purchase price to fair market value; Ludlow offered no contrary market-value evidence at the hearing.
- The district court calculated restitution using the victim’s purchase prices and ordered $2,750 in restitution.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by using purchase price for items that had market value without proof linking purchase price to fair market value; remanded for a new restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution can be based on purchase price when only retail/purchase prices were offered and no evidence of fair market value was presented | State argued victim’s testimony about purchase/retail prices sufficed to calculate restitution | Ludlow argued the State failed to prove fair market value and court erred by using purchase price for items with market value | Reversed: court abused discretion by using purchase prices without evidence of fair market value; remand for new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 342 P.3d 239 (Utah 2014) (restitution limited to pecuniary damages)
- State v. Corbitt, 82 P.3d 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (purchase price may sometimes be an appropriate measure of loss)
- State v. Greene, 147 P.3d 957 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (fair market value defined as amount a willing buyer would pay)
- Haycraft v. Adams, 24 P.2d 1110 (Utah 1933) (purchase price must be connected to market value or damages may be nominal)
- Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017 (Utah 1996) (purpose of restitution is to compensate victims and avoid separate civil litigation)
- State v. Gorlick, 605 P.2d 761 (Utah 1979) (urgency-sale price not appropriate measure of fair market value)
- State v. Ellis, 838 P.2d 1310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) (there are instances where purchase price better compensates victim than depreciated market value)