State v. Passwater, 2015 MT 159

On July 11, 2012, Brent Passwater, while intoxicated, failed to yield on a left turn and struck a motorcycle carrying Bryce and Lynn Boots; Bryce sustained a broken foot and Lynn required a below-knee amputation.
Passwater pleaded guilty to Negligent Vehicular Assault on October 18, 2013; sentencing was set for March 19, 2014.
The State filed a Presentence Investigation (PSI) including a Life Care Plan prepared by a certified life‑care planner estimating Lynn’s future care costs at $1,278,256. The Boots’ affidavit claimed total pecuniary loss of $1,427,318.01.
Passwater filed an objection to the PSI, calling the Plan speculative, disputing Crowley’s qualifications, and proposing a much lower restitution figure; at sentencing he presented a single amputee witness and lowered his proposed restitution.
The district court reviewed the Plan line‑by‑line, reduced some line items as speculative, and ordered restitution of $593,828.01 to the Boots and $24,988.40 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program (total $618,816.41).
Passwater appealed, arguing (1) the Plan’s cost projections were too speculative to support restitution and (2) admission of the Plan violated his due‑process rights because it contained inadmissible hearsay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in awarding restitution based in part on the Life Care Plan	The State: the Plan was a reasonable, well‑supported measure of pecuniary loss (expert preparation, citations, and consultation with medical providers) and provided the best evidence available	Passwater: the Plan’s cost projections were speculative, contained multiple "maybes," and relied on hearsay; thus insufficient foundation for restitution	The court affirmed. The Plan constituted substantial evidence; the court appropriately reduced speculative items and used its judgment to calculate restitution
Whether use of the Plan at sentencing violated Passwater’s due process/right to confront because it contained hearsay	The State: rules of evidence (including hearsay) do not apply at sentencing; the defendant had opportunity to rebut	Passwater: reliance on uncross‑examined hearsay deprived him of due process	The court held no violation: evidentiary rules largely inapplicable at sentencing and the defendant had adequate opportunity and time to rebut but failed to do so

State v. Aragon, 321 P.3d 841 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review for restitution and requirement that award rest on substantial evidence)
State v. Collucio, 214 P.3d 1282 (Mont. 2009) (reversal where restitution rested on speculative testimony and unsupported assumptions)
State v. O’Connor, 212 P.3d 276 (Mont. 2009) (restitution may be based on reasonable methods and best evidence available despite some uncertainty)
State v. Bingman, 745 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1987) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing)
State v. Dunkerson, 76 P.3d 1085 (Mont. 2003) (same; sentencing proceedings are not bound by evidentiary rules)