State v. Queever, 887 N.W.2d 912

Victim, an 86-year-old woman, experienced multiple incidents of money missing from her purse in Dec. 2013 and Apr. 2014; hidden cameras captured a burglar entering through a sliding glass door.
Because earlier footage was unclear, the victim paid in July 2014 to install a home security system (alarm + camera) to identify the intruder.
On Aug. 5, 2014 the new system recorded an attempted entry; police identified Thomas Queever from that footage and he admitted being the person in the images.
Queever pled no contest to attempted burglary (as charged) and was sentenced; the victim sought $2,495 restitution for the security system cost (court ordered $2,744.50 incl. surcharge).
Queever objected, arguing the system was purchased before the Aug. 5 attempt and thus not caused by the crime considered at sentencing; the court found by a preponderance that Queever committed the prior burglaries and that those burglaries caused the system installation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution for security system cost is recoverable as damage "caused by the crime considered at sentencing"	State/victim: system purchased because prior burglaries (part of course of conduct) and the system produced the ID used at sentencing; cost is a natural consequence of defendant's related criminal conduct	Queever: system was purchased before the Aug. 5 offense; the "crime considered at sentencing" should be limited to the attempted burglary on Aug. 5, so pre-existing expenses cannot be charged to him	Court affirmed: prior burglaries were part of the same course of conduct and thus part of the "crime considered at sentencing;" causal nexus exists and restitution was proper

State v. Canady, 234 Wis. 2d 261, 610 N.W.2d 147 (Ct. App. 2000) (defines "crime considered at sentencing" broadly and permits consideration of related conduct)
State v. Madlock, 230 Wis. 2d 324, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999) (restitution should consider defendant's entire course of conduct)
State v. Johnson, 287 Wis. 2d 381, 704 N.W.2d 625 (Ct. App. 2005) (circuit court has discretion to find whether defendant's activity was a substantial factor causing claimed expenses)
State v. Gibson, 344 Wis. 2d 220, 822 N.W.2d 500 (Ct. App. 2012) (restitution statute reflects policy favoring victim compensation and is to be construed liberally)
State v. Kennedy, 190 Wis. 2d 252, 528 N.W.2d 9 (Ct. App. 1994) (restitution policy rationale)
State v. Anderson, 215 Wis. 2d 673, 573 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997) (appellate review standard for circuit court factual findings)
Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co., 319 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 615 (Wis. 2009) (clarifies clearly erroneous standard)
State v. Szarkowitz, 157 Wis. 2d 740, 460 N.W.2d 819 (Ct. App. 1990) (interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 973.20 is a question of law)