State v. Putney, 2016 ND 135

On June 15–16, 2014 Putney was arrested for and pleaded guilty in municipal court to simple assault (city ordinance) and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
In July 2014 the State charged Putney in district court with aggravated assault for shooting the same victim; Putney moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
After a bench trial the district court convicted Putney of aggravated assault, sentenced him to prison, and reserved restitution for a later hearing.
At the restitution hearing the State sought $99,117.55 for the victim’s medical bills (offset by a $25,000 Crime Victims payment). Trinity Medical Group testified to $74,117.55 owing after the offset; documentation was admitted without objection.
Putney limited his defense to ability to pay and testified about employment history; he did not cross-examine the medical witnesses.
The district court ordered restitution of $49,559 (half of the total billed) split between the Crime Victims Reparation Fund and Trinity; the order is affirmed here, although the court noted restitution would be extinguished if aggravated-assault conviction is later barred by double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Putney)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering $49,559 restitution for victim medical expenses	Evidence and billing records show medical expenses were incurred and attributable to defendant; State satisfied burden by preponderance	Amount and causation were insufficiently proven; relief should be reduced or denied	Court held evidence supported amount and causation; no abuse of discretion in ordering $49,559 restitution
Whether restitution remains if double jeopardy later bars the aggravated-assault conviction	Restitution is part of the sentence and properly imposed now	Restitution could be invalidated if conviction is reversed on double jeopardy grounds	Court noted restitution would be extinguished if double jeopardy ultimately bars the aggravated-assault conviction

State v. Gates, 865 N.W.2d 816 (N.D. 2015) (explaining standards and limits for restitution orders)
State v. Bingaman, 655 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2002) (review standard for restitution similar to abuse of discretion)
State v. Kleppe, 800 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 2011) (burden of proof and abuse-of-discretion framework)
State v. Gendron, 747 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 2008) (district courts have wide discretion on restitution; evidentiary imprecision is permissible)
Keller v. Bolding, 678 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2004) (authority that imprecision in damages does not preclude recovery)
State v. Hatlewick, 700 N.W.2d 717 (N.D. 2005) (district court may retain jurisdiction to order restitution after sentencing)
B.W.S. Invs. v. Mid-Am Restaurants, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 759 (N.D. 1990) (when damages hard to prove, amount left to factfinder)