State v. Randell Blake, 174 A.3d 126

Background

In Aug. 2007 a fire at defendant Randell Blake’s house led Safeco Insurance to pay $115,994.74 in various policy-related disbursements.
Blake later pled guilty (Dec. 2009) to filing a false insurance claim related to that fire; the criminal court later ordered restitution to Safeco for the total loss.
Blake and Safeco previously litigated related civil claims and, in 2010, exchanged mutual general releases; Safeco’s release purported to release “any and all” claims it had against Blake arising from the policy and the civil action.
The State pursued restitution after a co-defendant was ordered to pay the same total loss; Blake argued the civil release barred restitution in the criminal proceeding.
The trial court ruled a civil release does not bar a criminal restitution order, held a restitution hearing, and entered an order for $115,734.74 but did not make findings on Blake’s ability to pay.
On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the court’s authority to order restitution despite the civil release but remanded for findings on Blake’s ability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a civil general release signed by the victim bars a criminal court from ordering restitution	State: Court must consider and may order restitution despite a civil release; restitution is part of sentencing and serves criminal goals beyond compensation	Blake: Safeco’s general release extinguished its claim and therefore precluded restitution in the criminal proceeding	Court: A civil release does not bar restitution; restitution is a sentencing condition serving rehabilitative/deterrent purposes and the court—not private parties—decides whether restitution is necessary
What “consider” means under 13 V.S.A. § 7043 (duty to consider restitution)	State: “Consider” requires the court to determine whether restitution is appropriate and, if necessary, impose it	Blake: Court fulfilled duty by noting the release and declining to order restitution	Held: “Consider” requires an active judicial determination; when restitution is necessary the court must order it
Whether victim can bargain away restitution by settlement/release in a civil case	State: Victim cannot bind the criminal court; victim is not a party to the prosecution and has limited role in restitution proceedings	Blake: Release settled all claims and should preclude further recovery, including restitution	Court: Victim’s civil release cannot extinguish court’s power to impose restitution; restitution and civil damages are separate and not interchangeable
Whether the trial court’s restitution order must be vacated for failure to make findings on ability to pay	Blake: Order should be vacated because court left ability-to-pay findings blank	State: Agreed the court erred and remand is required	Court: Agrees with State; reverses and remands for determination of ability to pay

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gorton, 195 Vt. 460 (Vt. 2014) (standard of review for restitution orders)
State v. Driscoll, 184 Vt. 381 (Vt. 2008) (trial court discretion in determining restitution amount)
State v. Hughes, 188 Vt. 595 (Vt. 2010) (restitution determination lies within trial court’s discretion)
State v. Jarvis, 146 Vt. 636 (Vt. 1988) (restitution is not a substitute for civil damages; limits on restitution recovery)
State v. Johnstone, 194 Vt. 230 (Vt. 2013) (plea agreements are contractual in nature but do not bind court’s restitution duty)
State v. Thomas, 189 Vt. 106 (Vt. 2010) (court must consider restitution in every case; parties cannot negotiate around restitution)
State v. Applegate, 976 P.2d 936 (Kan. 1999) (civil release does not bar criminal restitution order)