State v. R. Pierre, 466 P.3d 494

Pierre admitted entering the Whites’ guest house in June–July 2018 and stealing collectible dolls; he denied entering the Whites’ main house or aiding others in those burglaries.
Surveillance did not show Pierre entering or leaving the main house or garage; investigators recovered the dolls and antlers from his roommate’s home/Pierre’s bedroom.
The State charged Pierre only with one count: burglary of the guest house; he pled guilty and a PSI reported undifferentiated pecuniary loss to the Whites of $43,294.46 for multiple burglaries across the property.
At sentencing the District Court ordered Pierre jointly and severally liable for the entire undifferentiated loss because he was knowingly present on the property with associates when other burglaries occurred.
The investigating detective conceded there was no non-speculative evidence that Pierre entered or aided in the main-house or garage/barn burglaries; Pierre appealed the restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court could require Pierre to pay restitution for losses caused by others absent evidence he was criminally accountable or that his conduct caused those losses	State: Pierre was knowingly present with associates committing criminal acts; joint-and-several restitution appropriate	Pierre: only convicted of guest-house burglary; no evidence he entered or aided in main-house/garage burglaries; mere presence insufficient for liability	Reversed: Court erred. Restitution must be limited to losses caused by Pierre’s own offense or by others for which he is proven criminally accountable or a causal link is established; remand to determine appropriate restitution for guest-house conduct only

State v. Brownback, 356 Mont. 190, 232 P.3d 385 (2010) (an indirect causal connection can support restitution when the record shows the defendant’s conduct caused the victim’s loss)
State v. Beavers, 300 Mont. 49, 3 P.3d 614 (2000) (after‑the‑fact possession does not, by itself, make defendant liable for losses caused by others absent proof of accountability for those initial thefts)
State v. Breeding, 343 Mont. 323, 184 P.3d 313 (2008) (defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for damage caused by a co‑defendant’s prior offense when defendant was not criminally responsible for that prior conduct)
In re B.W., 373 Mont. 409, 318 P.3d 682 (2014) (restitution for others’ conduct requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal accountability if the defendant was not charged/convicted or did not admit responsibility)
State v. Simpson, 375 Mont. 393, 328 P.3d 1144 (2014) (restoration of restitution limited to losses caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct or for which the defendant is criminally accountable)
State v. Workman, 326 Mont. 1, 107 P.3d 462 (2005) (the statutory causation standard for restitution follows civil causation principles)