State v. Ty Baker, Sr., 177 A.3d 1093

Defendant Ty Baker pleaded no contest to grossly negligent operation after colliding with a car driven by the wife of the person seeking restitution.
The car was totaled; wife (driver) and husband were joint owners; insurance covered vehicle replacement but not husband’s lost wages.
Husband missed 29.25 hours of work (three days) traveling from Massachusetts to Vermont to handle accident-related matters; he claimed $828.88 in lost wages.
At a contested restitution hearing the trial court found husband a “victim” and ordered Baker to pay $828.88 for the lost wages, concluding the absence was a direct result of the crime.
Baker appealed, arguing (1) husband is not a victim under the restitution statute, (2) the lost wages were not a direct result of the crime, and (3) the State failed to prove the amount of loss.
The Supreme Court reversed the restitution order, holding husband’s lost wages were not a recoverable direct result of Baker’s crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether husband qualifies as a “victim” under the restitution statute	State: husband suffered financial injury via joint ownership of the damaged car and thus is a victim	Baker: husband is not a victim for restitution purposes	Held: Husband qualifies as a victim based on financial loss in the vehicle ownership
Whether husband’s lost wages were a “direct result” of the crime	State: losses were natural and probable consequences; but-for causation suffices	Baker: restitution requires more than but-for causation; lost wages are too remote	Held: Rejected but-for; restitution requires proximate cause/reasonable foreseeability; husband’s lost wages are not a direct result and thus not recoverable
Whether consequential or downstream losses are recoverable in restitution	State: reasonable responses to crime should be compensable	Baker: restitution statute excludes consequential, unliquidated losses and limits scope	Held: Restitution is narrow; consequential/unliquidated losses (like these downstream lost wages) are excluded
Whether the State proved amount of loss with sufficient certainty	State: presented claimed hours and wage total	Baker: challenged sufficiency and reasonableness of days missed	Held: Court did not decide this issue because restitution fails on causation grounds

State v. LaFlam, 184 Vt. 629 (2008) (requires more than but-for causation; proximate cause/foreseeability needed for restitution)
State v. Forant, 168 Vt. 217 (1998) (consequential economic losses not recoverable; statute narrowly drawn)
State v. Morse, 197 Vt. 495 (2014) (recognizing non-present owners as victims when vehicle is damaged)
State v. Jarvis, 146 Vt. 636 (1986) (restitution limited to liquidated, easily ascertained losses)
State v. Shepherd, 192 Vt. 494 (2012) (exceptional case permitting relocation costs where grievous crime made relocation a natural and probable consequence)
State v. Thomas, 189 Vt. 106 (2010) (hospital’s losses held too remote to be direct victims for restitution)
State v. Kenvin, 191 Vt. 30 (2011) (downstream family losses too distant for restitution)
State v. Bohannon, 187 Vt. 410 (2010) (restitution is part of sentence but not punitive; link must be direct)