State v. Ogden
2018 UT 8
| Utah | 2018Background
- Victim was sexually abused by defendant Jesse Ogden when she was a toddler; years later she was sexually abused again by another man (S.G.).
- Ogden pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child; Victim sought restitution for past and anticipated lifetime mental-health and medical costs.
- Victim submitted a forensic evaluation (Dr. David Corwin) and a life-care plan (Sheryl Wainwright); Dr. Corwin attributed significant lifelong risk but said harms could not be reliably apportioned between perpetrators; Wainwright projected extensive lifetime treatment and medication costs based on literature and her case experience.
- The district court awarded "complete restitution" of $2,092,306 (entered as a civil judgment) and ordered various enforcement measures (life‑insurance beneficiary changes, half the home equity as security); court-ordered restitution was set at $127,089.60 plus asset-based remedies.
- Ogden appealed, arguing the district court applied an incorrect causation standard (less than proximate cause), and that portions of the award were speculative; the Utah Supreme Court granted certification from the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate causation standard for CVRA restitution | CVRA permits awarding all losses that "resulted from" the criminal activity; should not require proximate cause (State argued but-for or broader standard supports award) | Ogden argued restitution must be limited to losses proximately caused by his conduct (not losses caused by subsequent intervening acts) | Court held CVRA requires proximate causation (harm must be the kind of loss the defendant proximately caused); vacated and remanded for application of proximate-cause standard |
| Evidentiary basis for future (lifetime) damages | Victim argued life-care plan and expert testimony provided a reasonable basis for future treatment and medication costs | Ogden argued many projected items (medication, repeated inpatient stays, intensive programs) were speculative and lacked individualized medical foundation | Court ruled restitution must rest on non‑speculative evidence; some items (those specifically recommended by Dr. Corwin) were supportable, but many of Wainwright’s generalized projections lacked adequate individualized foundation and require firmer proof on remand |
| Ability of criminal court to impose payment conditions (e.g., life insurance/house equity) | Victim sought enforcement/security measures to make restitution collectible | Ogden argued the court lacked authority to dictate such conditions or order sale/alteration of assets | Court declined to resolve the issue; noted statutory tools (e.g., §77-38a-601) and left the question for another day or remand resolution |
| Defendant's procedural/due-process challenge to CVRA | Ogden asserted CVRA denied due process and civil procedural protections | State argued the claim was unpreserved and restitution procedures are lawful | Court found due-process argument unpreserved and declined to address ineffective-assistance claim for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Barneck v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 353 P.3d 140 (Utah 2015) (interpreting statutory phrases like “results from” and applying proximate‑cause analysis in statutory context)
- State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (discussing restitution statute structure and practical difficulties resolving proximate cause in sentencing/restitution proceedings)
- Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (U.S. 2005) (concluding statute required proof that defendant’s misrepresentation proximately caused plaintiff’s economic loss)
- United States v. Osman, 853 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting restitution may be an inexact science but must rest on evidence with indicia of reliability)
- Bastian v. King, 661 P.2d 953 (Utah 1983) (awards of damages cannot rest on pure speculation; approximations must be based on reasonable assumptions)