State v. Sabina Hallam
Background
- In 2011–2012 Hallam, hired to assist an elderly employer, had authorized but limited use of the employer’s credit cards; she made numerous unauthorized charges over ~17 months.
- Law enforcement estimated unauthorized charges between $34,087 and $38,167; Hallam admitted personal use of about $2–3k. The State charged five counts of grand theft; Hallam pleaded guilty to one count; others dismissed.
- At sentencing the court imposed a unified five-year sentence (three years fixed) and retained jurisdiction; a restitution order was announced and later formalized after Hallam completed retained jurisdiction.
- A post-retention restitution hearing considered the prosecutor’s restitution affidavit, testimony from two State witnesses (including a former CPA reserve deputy who prepared a restitution memo and spreadsheet), and one defense witness.
- The deputy categorized losses into (1) identifiable goods ($21,701) using credit-card statements, receipts, and employer verification, and (2) food/sundries ($12,386–$16,466) estimated using remaining charges adjusted by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics averages; he subtracted an allowance for gas, yielding an amended total restitution of $30,787.
- Hallam appealed, arguing (a) the district court abused its discretion in retaining jurisdiction and (b) the restitution award lacked competent and substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s retention of jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion | State: retention was proper (no specific counter-argument in opinion) | Hallam: mitigating factors warranted probation at sentencing (retention was improper) | Moot: Hallam’s retention period ended and she received probation; issue no longer live |
| Whether restitution award was supported by competent and substantial evidence | State: restitution based on admissible, quantifiable evidence (statements, receipts, employer verification, BLS statistics) | Hallam: awards for identifiable purchases lacked receipts/accounting and food/sundries figures were speculative (Straub) | Affirmed: evidence was competent and substantial; Hallam waived many objections by failing to timely or specifically object in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Hedger v. State, 115 Idaho 598 (Idaho 1989) (appellate review framework for discretionary decisions)
- Manzanares v. State, 152 Idaho 410 (Idaho 2012) (mootness doctrine and when appeals should be dismissed)
- Straub v. State, 153 Idaho 882 (Idaho 2013) (future/ speculative losses and limits on restitution for non-actually-suffered economic loss)
- Lombard v. State, 149 Idaho 819 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010) (recognizing estimation challenges for employee theft spanning long periods)
- Caudill v. State, 109 Idaho 222 (Idaho 1985) (one may not complain on appeal about evidence or procedure to which one consented)