State v. Tetrault, 54 A.3d 146

Defendant and friends broke into a remote camp, damaging and using camp owner’s items; defendant pled guilty to unlawful trespass; restitution was sought by the State.
At restitution hearing, defendant argued replacement cost should not exceed actual value at the time of loss and that items not damaged but used could not be replaced for restitution.
Hearing produced a list totaling $1,198.11, split between items actually damaged/destroyed and items merely used or soiled.
Damaged/destroyed items (microwave, toaster, shed lock, throw rugs, propane, water pump) were replaced at modest replacement costs; defendant acknowledged these losses but contested valuation.
Used items (mattresses, sheets, blankets, kitchenware) were replaced; camp owner argued replacement was warranted to avoid emotional distress, while defendant argued no restitution for non-damaged items.
Trial court held restitution appropriate for both damaged and used items, linking losses to the offense; court declined to limit to actual value and awarded full claimed damages; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper measure for damaged items	Tetrault should pay replacement costs as damages.	Damages should be measured by actual value at time of loss.	Replacement cost authorized for damaged items.
Restitution for used/not-damaged items	Used/kitchenware items were deprived of use and restitution is proper.	No restitution for non-damaged items and no emotional-distress recovery.	Restitution for used items was proper; linked to offense.
Direct link between offense and restitution	Losses flowed directly from the unlawful trespass.	Damages may not be tied to trespass since destruction element is lacking.	There is a direct link between the offense and the losses; restitution upheld.
Waiver of defenses on appeal			Arguments not raised at hearing are waived; post-judgment motion not sufficient to preserve.

State v. LaFlam, 184 Vt. 629 (VT 2008) (direct link between loss and conduct for restitution)
State v. Forant, 719 A.2d 399 (VT 1998) (restitution must relate to damage caused by defendant's act)
State v. Driscoll, 184 Vt. 381 (VT 2008) (deer missing due to gate damage; restitution affirmed for related loss)
State v. Lewis, 711 A.2d 669 (VT 1998) (trial court has discretion to determine restitution amount)
State v. Curtis, 443 A.2d 464 (VT 1982) (blue book value used for vehicle restitution)
State v. Jarvis, 509 A.2d 1005 (VT 1986) (emotional distress not recoverable in restitution)