Restitution on a Stolen, Allegedly Irreplaceable Item

It is not uncommon for theft to involve an irreplaceable item that is never recovered, particularly “one of a kind” jewelry, artwork or a special car.  How is restitution calculated for such an item because valuation of it has no ready reference source because it is unique?

The following case out of Placer County, appealed to the Third Appellate District, addresses this difficult issue.

Defendant Jeffrey Nels Michael LaRoche stole Antonio Davila’s mounted ram’s head with large double curling antlers.  This hunting trophy was earned, not bought, during a hunting trip ten years earlier costing several thousand dollars.  The ram’s head was never recovered.

However, after Mr. LaRoche was arrested, charged and entered into a plea bargain for such theft (and was sentenced to two years, eight months, in state prison, Mr. Davila requested $7,500 in restitution based on the travel cost of a hunting trip to Texas, food, accommodations, miscellaneous expenses, the hunt itself and taxidermy / mounting expenses ($1,500) for the head of the ram Mr. Davila shot.  Mr. Davila testified, moreover, that it was illegal to trade in taxidermized animals.  Was this restitution award reasonable?

 

The trial court ruled that Mr. LaRoche owed Mr. Davila $7,500, which included the cost of the hunting trip.

Mr. LaRoche appealed this award to the Third Appellate District Court in Sacramento.  He argued that the $7,500 was not an economic loss because the cost of the trip was really the cost of an experience and not an economic loss, such as property lost, as a result of the theft.  The experience was not lost due to defendant’s conduct.  The experience and the memories of it remain.  Moreover, defendant failed to provide any documentation to support such a claim for the hunt, which was ten years earlier.

The Third Appellate District Court began its analysis by acknowledging that a victim’s right to restitution must generally be liberally construed.  People v. Baudoin (2022) 85 Cal. App. 5th 1184, 1191.  However, the loss must be an economic loss incurred because of defendant’s conduct. 

The appellate court also acknowledged that, ordinarily, “a trial court’s determination of the amount of restitution is reversible only if the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion.  In determining restitution, all that is required is that the trial court “use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious.  The order must be affirmed if there is a factual and rational basis for the amount.  People v. Prosser (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 682, 689-690, quoting People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1376, 1382). 

“A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall.”  People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1159, 1172.

However, where, as here, “the propriety of a restitution order turns on the interpretation of a statute, a question of law is raised, which is subject to de novo review on appeal.”  People v. Henderson (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 467, 470, quoting People v. Williams (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 142, 146.

Whether costs a victim incurs in acquiring the property deprived by the defendant’s criminal conduct constitutes an economic loss under Penal Code § 1202.4 is a legal issue of statutory construction.

To answer that question, the court gives the statutory language its plain and commonsense meaning.  Jarman v. HCR ManorCare, Inc. (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 375, 381, citing Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 733, 737.

The appellate court then evaluated whether the cost of the hunting trip was an economic cost and decided it was not.  Rather, it was an experience and it was not only for the ram’s head.  Moreover, the defendant’s theft did not wipe away the experience.

Therefore, the appellate court reduced the restitution amount to $1,500.