State v. Tetrault,
2012
VT 51 (mem.).
This is a straightforward little ditty in which the SCOV
refuses to second guess the trial court or penalize a victim in a restitution
case for his modest shopping habits.
Defendant in this case broke into victim’s camp and set up
home. Using the available supplies,
Defendant wrecked the place. When the
state police caught up with him, several of the victim’s appliances were down
for the count, and the camp was quite a bit worse for the wear as Defendant,
his dogs, and others had trashed the place.
The State initially charged Defendant with a slew of
felonies, but Defendant eventually pled down to a single charge of unlawful
trespass with a suspended sentence and a restitution hearing.
At the hearing, victim testified about the damage done and
the replacement value of each item that Defendant had paid. Victim had replaced just about all of the
appliances, sheets, pots, and rugs in the camp along with a mattress. Victim, though had done all his shopping at
Wal-Mart, and the final bill was fairly low.
The trial court ordered restitution for all items. Defendant appealed from this decision.
Defendant makes three arguments on appeal. The SCOV sets them up and knocks them down in
quick order.
First, Defendant took the items that he actually destroyed
and argued that he should not have to pay their full replacement value. Defendant’s arguments will be familiar to
anyone who has negotiated with an insurance adjuster. He argued that Defendant’s items (mainly a
microwave and a toaster) were old and used and that Defendant replaced them
with new items. Defendant argues that he
should only be responsible for their actual value as used items—presumably
based on what they would have fetched at a garage sale.
Pettifoggery!
Exclaims the SCOV who had been waiting all term to use that word. Restitution is about restoring items that
were lost to the victim. Items such as
microwaves or toasters do not have a “bluebook” actual value. Their value is what they cost to
replace. Arguing that the victim should
have gone to garage-sales and priced out a “used” microwave is a petty and
disreputable position. Victim went to
Wal-Mart bought a cheap replacement, and that is all he had to do.
For his second argument, Defendant argued that victim was
not entitled to claim restitution for the various rugs, sheets, pots, pans, and
dishes that Defendant and company soiled while squatting in the camp. Defendant is essentially saying: What’s wrong with a little Tide and a few
rinse cycles? Let that pan soak. It will come off.
The SCOV, which has clearly had to deal with a baked on mess
or two in its time, closes this line of argument down. Defendant and company used these items, and
while they are not destroyed, they are damaged and despoiled. Just as shinning a black-light in a motel
room can lead to a loss of faith, here the mere idea that Defendants used and
abused these items is enough to justify the trial court’s award of
damages. Again, victim replaced the
items on the cheap, and the SCOV is not going to deny the man the right to
purchase new sheets and not have to lie awake in the old ones pondering just exactly
what Defendant did to them.
Defendant’s final argument is deemed waived by the SCOV
because it was not raised at the initial hearing. Nevertheless, the SCOV addresses it briefly
and rejects it on its merits as well.
Basically, Defendant argues that the “unlawful trespass”
charge that he pled is not directly related to the damage that he did, and that
the restitution was improperly ordered.
Vermont law allows the State to seek restitution on behalf
of victims from criminal defendants for losses suffered as a direct result of
the conduct for which the defendants are convicted. Here Defendant argued that because unlawful
trespass was simply the illegal entry into the camp and not the ensuing
mischief, the damages were not a direct result.
The SCOV denies this argument and rests its conclusion on
two points. First is the standard of
review. The trial court had broad
discretion to make a restitution award.
Therefore, the SCOV is only going to look at the issue for an abuse of discretion. To succeed under this standard, Defendant
would have had to go all the way and prove that there was no reasonable
connection between the crime of unlawful trespass and the damages that victim
suffered.
Second, it is not difficult to connect the victim’s damages
with Defendant’s actions. It is not as
if the trespass was unrelated or removed in time or space from the mischief
that destroyed the property. The
trespass was the first act of the play and the destruction followed before
intermission.
While the SCOV does not make a categorical determination
about what damages can follow from unlawful trespass. It has no problem affirming the award here as
just, reasonable, and connected.
Defendant strikes out, and proves that even when you squat
in an apartment, you never get the damage retainer back.
Comments
Post a Comment