State v. Wadsworth, 351 P.3d 826

In 2003 Wadsworth engaged in sexual exploitation and unlawful sexual activity with a minor after meeting her online; he pled guilty in 2004 to several charges.
Sentencing was set for April 2005, but Wadsworth failed to appear and a warrant issued; he was arrested in July 2009 and finally sentenced in December 2009.
The district court ordered restitution but took the amount under advisement and later held hearings in November and December 2010.
Victim testified she developed depression, sleep problems, and social difficulties when the case re‑opened in 2009, causing her to reduce work hours and lose about $12,934.40 in wages; counseling costs of $6,500 were also claimed.
The district court credited Victim’s testimony, found Wadsworth’s reappearance re‑triggered trauma, and ordered restitution for counseling and lost wages.
Wadsworth appealed only the lost‑wages portion, arguing the causal link was too attenuated and that lost wages here are essentially non‑recoverable pain and suffering.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Victim’s lost wages in 2009–2010 "arose out of" Wadsworth’s 2003 criminal activity under the Crime Victims Restitution Act	The State: Victim’s decreased earnings were a direct, foreseeable result of psychological trauma caused by Wadsworth and his 2009 reappearance; damages satisfy the Act’s modified "but‑for" and non‑attenuation tests.	Wadsworth: Several years elapsed; temporal and factual attenuation make the causal link too remote.	Affirmed — court found but‑for causation satisfied; temporal gap attributable to Wadsworth’s fleeing and factual nexus supported by credible testimony.
Whether lost wages stemming from emotional/psychological injury are barred as "pain and suffering" (non‑recoverable) rather than recoverable pecuniary damages	The State: The Act defines pecuniary damages to include demonstrable economic losses such as lost earnings; the focus is the link between crime and monetary loss, not the injury type.	Wadsworth: The claimed lost wages are a proxy for pain and suffering and therefore excluded from statutory restitution.	Affirmed — court held lost wages are pecuniary damages recoverable under the Act when they arise directly from the crime.

State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (standard for reviewing restitution and but‑for causation)
State v. Brown, 221 P.3d 273 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (adoption of modified "but‑for" test for restitution causation)
State v. Corbitt, 82 P.3d 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (trial court discretion in fashioning equitable restitution awards)
State v. Ruiz, 305 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (restitution statute should be liberally construed to make victims whole)
State v. Shepherd, 60 A.3d 213 (Vt. 2012) (economic costs arising from emotional injury may be restitutionable when directly linked to the crime)