State v. Toby Charbonneau
152 A.3d 462
Vt.2016Background
- Victims reported a March 2014 burglary and claimed $52,230.97 in losses; insurers paid $21,172 toward those claims.
- Police executed a search of defendant Charbonneau’s home after Facebook listings; 15 items identified by the victims were recovered and later returned to them.
- Charbonneau pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor possession of stolen property based on items recovered from his residence; he was not charged with burglary and did not admit to burglary.
- At a restitution hearing the State sought $35,791 (victims’ uninsured loss), which included value of both recovered/returned items and unrecovered items from the burglary.
- The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Charbonneau had committed the burglary and ordered restitution for the full uninsured loss; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution must relate to damage caused by the crime of conviction | State argued restitution may include all burglary losses because defendant possessed stolen items and court found he committed burglary | Charbonneau argued restitution must be limited to losses directly caused by the offense of possession of stolen property | Reversed: restitution must relate directly to the criminal conduct for which defendant was convicted; court exceeded scope by basing restitution on burglary conduct not covered by plea |
| Whether restitution may include items recovered and returned to victims | State included value of recovered items in calculating uninsured loss | Defendant argued returned items caused no material loss and cannot support restitution | Court held returned items caused no material loss under statute; restitution cannot be based on items returned to victims |
| Whether restitution may include unrecovered items not shown to be in defendant's possession | State sought recovery for unrecovered items as part of burglary losses | Defendant argued no findings that he possessed those unrecovered items, so no causal link | Court declined to reach merits but noted restitution for unrecovered items would require specific findings that defendant possessed them by preponderance of evidence |
| Whether trial court must make findings about defendant's ability to pay | State and court noted no evidence on ability to pay; State did not object to adopted findings from co-defendant’s hearing | Defendant argued court erred by failing to make ability-to-pay findings | Court did not address this issue because reversal on dispositive issue (scope of restitution) rendered it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forant, 168 Vt. 217, 719 A.2d 399 (1998) (restitution requires causation between defendant's criminal act and victim's loss)
- State v. VanDusen, 166 Vt. 240, 691 A.2d 1053 (1997) (restitution must relate to conduct covered by the conviction; trial court may quantify loss by preponderance)
- State v. Stimpson, 151 Vt. 645, 563 A.2d 1001 (1989) (restitution must relate to damage caused by the conduct for which defendant was convicted)
- State v. Rollins, 182 Vt. 644, 944 A.2d 218 (2007) (vacating restitution based on conduct not covered by conviction)