State v. Wadsworth
2017 UT 20
| Utah | 2017Background
- Scott C. Wadsworth was convicted of sex offenses; the victim sought restitution for counseling costs and lost income allegedly caused by the offenses.
- The district court awarded $12,934 for lost income in addition to counseling costs, even though the State did not allege the victim suffered bodily injury from the offenses.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, reading Utah Code § 77-38a-302(5)(b) as listing exemplary factors courts may consider when calculating "complete restitution," not an exclusive list.
- Central statutory provision at issue: § 77-38a-302(5)(b)(iv) allows consideration of "the income lost by the victim as a result of the offense if the offense resulted in bodily injury to a victim."
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the "if" clause in (5)(b)(iv) limits lost-income restitution to cases with bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost-income restitution under § 77-38a-302(5)(b)(iv) is available only when the offense resulted in bodily injury | Wadsworth argued lost income is unavailable because the statute conditions lost-income awards on the offense having resulted in bodily injury | State argued the list in (5)(b) is illustrative; courts may award lost income even without bodily injury because the statute requires consideration of "all relevant facts" | Court held the "if" clause is limiting: lost-income restitution under (5)(b)(iv) is available only if the offense resulted in bodily injury |
| Whether the enumerated items in § 77-38a-302(5)(b) are exclusive limits on restitution | Wadsworth contended some listed items impose substantive limits (e.g., bodily-injury condition) | State contended the list is nonexclusive and purely exemplary of relevant facts | Court held the list is generally exemplary but individual items can impose limits; the bodily-injury phrasing in (iv) is a substantive condition |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevares v. M.L.S., 345 P.3d 719 (Utah 2015) (expressio unius canon supports treating a specifically stated limitation as excluding others)
- Dorsey v. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 330 P.3d 91 (Utah 2014) (subsequent statutory amendment rarely clarifies original meaning)
- Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 792 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1990) ("if" is standard conditional language)