United States v. Schmidt
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6353
8th Cir.2012Background
- Schmidt assaulted Brittany Shaw at a Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation house party; injures including a laceration to Shaw's jugular and artery, requiring multiple surgeries.
- Schmidt, an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, was convicted after a three-day trial of assault with a deadly weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
- The district court ordered restitution under MVRA to South Dakota Medicaid and the State Crime Victim Compensation (SCVC) program for Shaw's medical costs and clothing reimbursement.
- Shaw's medical care was covered by state Medicaid; Shaw did not initially request restitution, but SD requested $64,088.06 to Medicaid and $193.50 to SCVC.
- Schmidt argued VWPA should govern restitution due to indigence, but the district court held MVRA applies because the offenses are crimes of violence, making restitution mandatory.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that government agencies can receive restitution under MVRA where they compensated a victim, and that the third-party payments may be paid directly to those entities under 3664(j)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVRA requires restitution to government agencies acting as insurers | Schmidt contends agencies aren’t victims under MVRA | Government argues agencies compensated Shaw and qualify as receivers of restitution | Yes; agencies may receive restitution when they compensated the victim |
| Whether Shaw was a MVRA victim and suffered a compensable loss | Shaw’s losses were not suffered by a government entity; not a direct victim | Shaw suffered medical losses; third-party compensation supports restitution | Shaw was a MVRA victim; her medical costs are compensable |
| Whether 3664(j)(1) allows direct restitution to a government entity providing compensation | Restitution should go to Shaw and then to government only if MVRA directs | 3664(j)(1) permits payment to the entity that provided compensation | Yes; direct payment to government compensation providers is proper under 3664(j)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cliatt, 338 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (insurer or government payment can suffice as compensation for MVRA loss; direct payment to government authority permitted)
- United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2010) (section 3664(j)(1) requires direct restitution to a private insurer when it compensated the victim)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2011) (MVRA and 3664 interplay; supports direct payment to compensation providers)
- United States v. Senty-Haugen, 449 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2006) (government entities can be victims under MVRA; expands restitution scope)
- United States v. Reichow, 416 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for restitution orders (abuse of discretion; de novo on statute application))
- United States v. Malpeso, 126 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997) (FBI as a compensating entity authorized to receive restitution)