State v. Richard Ernest Andersen
Background
- Andersen (age 21) pleaded guilty to battery on a police officer (felony), malicious injury to property, and one count of battery; one battery count was dismissed. Sentences were suspended and probation imposed for the felony; short jail terms for misdemeanors were credited to time served.
- The State sought restitution initially listed at $53,786.21; at hearing the requested restitution was $50,705.91 based on reimbursements for the officer’s injuries and related expenses as shown by a claims adjuster’s exhibit.
- Andersen’s counsel argued the State failed to prove causation for some losses and that the restitution amount would “financially ruin” Andersen given his limited education (10th grade), special education history, minimal work experience, unemployment, and current residence with parents.
- The district court found Andersen’s actions were purposeful and that he chose to resist the officer, causing injury; it acknowledged Andersen’s minimal present and likely future earning capacity.
- Despite recognizing it was unlikely Andersen could ever fully pay, the district court ordered $50,705.91 restitution, noting the order would allow victims to access any future assets; Andersen appealed only the court’s consideration of his inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Andersen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by ordering $50,705.91 restitution despite Andersen’s inability to pay | Restitution may be ordered even if defendant currently cannot pay; statute and precedent permit orders in contemplation of future ability to pay | Court failed to give proper weight to Andersen’s current and foreseeable inability to pay given his limited education, skills, and employment prospects | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; inability to pay now does not preclude restitution and order preserves victims’ ability to reach future assets |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Richmond, 43 P.3d 794 (Idaho Ct. App.) (discretionary nature of restitution and factors to consider)
- State v. Bybee, 768 P.2d 804 (Idaho Ct. App.) (restitution may be ordered despite probable inability to fully pay; preserves victims’ access to future assets)
- State v. Taie, 71 P.3d 477 (Idaho Ct. App.) (defendant’s immediate inability to pay is one factor but does not bar restitution)
- State v. Hedger, 768 P.2d 1331 (Idaho) (standard of appellate review for discretionary decisions)