Existing law provides that a minor who violates a criminal law may be adjudged to be a ward of the court. Existing law generally requires that the minor pay a restitution fine to be deposited into the Restitution Fund and restitution to any victim of his or her conduct. Existing law defines a victim to include the immediate surviving family of the actual victim and governmental entities, as specified.

This bill would expand the definition of victim to include a corporation, estate, or other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. The bill would also expand the definition of victim to include a person who has sustained economic loss as a result of a crime and who satisfies specified conditions.

Existing law provides that a minor who violates a criminal law may be adjudged to be a ward of the court. Existing law generally requires that the minor pay a restitution fine to be deposited into the Restitution Fund and restitution to any victim of his or her conduct. Existing law defines a victim to include the immediate surviving family of the actual victim and governmental entities, as specified.

This bill would expand the definition of victim to include a corporation, estate, or other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. The bill would also expand the definition of victim to include a person who has sustained economic loss as a result of a crime and who satisfies specified conditions.

Existing law provides that a minor who violates a criminal law may be adjudged to be a ward of the court. Existing law generally requires that the minor pay a restitution fine to be deposited into the Restitution Fund and restitution to any victim of his or her conduct. Existing law defines a victim to include the immediate surviving family of the actual victim and governmental entities, as specified.

This bill would expand the definition of victim to include a corporation, estate, or other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. The bill would also expand the definition of victim to include a person who has sustained economic loss as a result of a crime and who satisfies specified conditions.

Existing law provides that a minor who violates a criminal law may be adjudged to be a ward of the court. Existing law generally requires that the minor pay a restitution fine to be deposited into the Restitution Fund and restitution to any victim of his or her conduct. Existing law defines a victim to include the immediate surviving family of the actual victim and governmental entities, as specified.

This bill would expand the definition of victim to include a corporation, estate, or other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. The bill would also expand the definition of victim to include a person who has sustained economic loss as a result of a crime and who satisfies specified conditions. To the extent this bill would result in payment out of the Restitution Fund, this bill would make an appropriation.

Existing law provides that a minor who violates a criminal law may be adjudged to be a ward of the court. Existing law generally requires that the minor pay a restitution fine to be deposited into the Restitution Fund and restitution to any victim of his or her conduct. Existing law defines a victim to include the immediate surviving family of the actual victim and governmental entities, as specified.

This bill would expand the definition of victim to include a corporation, estate, or other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. The bill would also expand the definition of victim to include a person who has sustained economic loss as a result of a crime and who satisfies specified conditions. To the extent this bill would result in payment out of the Restitution Fund, this bill would make an appropriation.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 651

Author: Leyva (D)

Amended: 6/23/15

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/21/15

AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/18/15 (Consent)

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Hall, Pavley

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 6/29/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Juvenile conduct: victims

SOURCE: Crime Victims Action Alliance (co-source)

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (co-source)

DIGEST: This bill conforms the definition of "victim" for purposes of restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings to the definition of "victim" applicable in adult criminal restitution proceedings.

Assembly Amendments strike provisions in the existing juvenile court restitution provisions that are redundant of the more comprehensive provision in this bill.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides in the California Constitution that all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution from the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution must be ordered in every case without exception. Where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy restitution orders. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A)-(C).)

2. Defines, in the California Constitution, a victim as “a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term ‘victim’ also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e), italics added.)

3. Provides for restitution orders in criminal convictions – enforceable as a civil judgment – to ensure that a victim of a crime who incurs any economic loss shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime. If a restitution order is made, the defendant has the right to a hearing before the court to dispute the determination of the amount of the order. A restitution order may be modified upon motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the defendant. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subds. (f) and (i).)

4. Provides that a restitution order shall be prepared by the court and identify each victim and each loss. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)

5. Requires who are found in a juvenile delinquency matter must pay victim restitution and a victim restitution fine. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6.)

6. Defines a victim for purposes of adult criminal sentencing in a comprehensive manner. The definition includes the following:

1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim.

2. A corporation, other specified commercial or legal entity, a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, when such an entity is a direct victim of a crime.

3. A person who has sustained economic loss from a crime and who, at the time of the crime, had the status or identity of one of the following:

1. The parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim One who living in the household of the victim;

2. One who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a familial relationship;

3. A more broadly defined family member of the victim who witnessed the crime, such as the victim’s fiancé or fiancé;

4. The primary caretaker of a minor victim;

5. A person eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund;

6. A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (k).)

7. Defines a victim for purposes of restitution in a juvenile case to include:

1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim;

2. A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6, subd. (j).)

8. Provides in applicable appellate decisions that a juvenile court has the authority to issue a broad restitution order, consistent with the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court and the broad definition of a victim in the California Constitution (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 854-855; In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 515, 522.)

This bill adds the following to the definition of a "victim" for purposes of the restitution statute applicable in juvenile dependency proceedings:

1. A corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime; and

2. A person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who satisfies any of the following conditions:

1. At the time of the crime was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim;

2. At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim;

3. At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a relationship listed above;

4. Is another family member of the victim, including, but not limited to, the victim’s fiancé or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or,

5. Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim.

Background

Constitutionally Mandated Right to Victim Restitution. The right of a victim to restitution from the perpetrator of a crime that caused the victim suffer a loss became a constitutional right when adopted as part of Proposition 8 in 1982. Proposition 8 added article I, section 28, subdivision (b), to the California Constitution, and provided:

"It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.
Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted persons in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss, unless compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary. The Legislature shall adopt provisions to implement this section during the calendar year following adoption of this section."

The Proposition was not self-executing, but rather directed the Legislature to adopt implementing legislation. (People v. Vega-Hernández (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1084.) In response, the Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1203.04 (repealed section related to restitution as condition of probation). (People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 795, fn. 3.)

The constitutional provisions regarding restitution were amended by the voters again in 2008, when they approved Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, also known as Marsy's Law. Concerning restitution, the initiative made clear that a victim is entitled to restitution, expanded the definition of a victim to include a representative of a deceased victim, and gave that representative the ability to enforce a victim's right. ( People v. Runyan (2012) 54 Cal.4th 849, 858-859.)

The current definition of a "victim" under the California Constitution includes the following: a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted com-mission of a crime or delinquent act; the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian; and a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated. (Cal. Const. art I, § 28(e).) The term "victim" excludes a person in custody for an offense, the accused, and a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a minor victim. (Ibid.)

The statutory definition of a "victim" differs from the constitutional definition and is broader in its specific provision.. (See California Judges Benchguides, Restitution, revised 2013, §§ 83.53 & 83.54.) A "victim" under Penal Code section 1202.4 is any individual who has suffered economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime of which the defendant was convicted. (Pen. Code §1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) A "victim" also includes: the immediate surviving family of the actual victim; a corporation and other specified legal, commercial, or government entities when the entity is a direct victim of a crime; other individuals who suffered economic loss and who satisfy certain familial or other close relationships with the direct victim, such as a primary caretaker or a minor victim, a fiancée, or present and former household members; a person eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund; and a government entity responsible for repairing public or private property damaged by vandalism. (Pen. Code §1202.4, subd. (k).)

This bill adopts the specifically broader, statutory definition of a victim for purposes of restitution in juvenile cases.

Recent Case Law. In In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 515, the Second District Court of Appeal held that in light of constitutional mandates, a victim's family members are included within the class of "victims" entitled to restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Appellant, who was 17 years old when he committed a violation of lewd acts upon a child, appealed the trial court's order awarding restitution to the victim's family for mental health counseling. In the first appeal, the court held the victim's family members, as derivative victims, were not entitled to restitution under the language of Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, the statute governing the issue of restitution in delinquency cases. (Id. at pp. 517-518.)

The California Supreme Court granted review on its own motion and tranfsferred back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider the opinion in light of Proposition 9, Marsy's Law. (In re Scott H., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 518.)

In its analysis, the appellate court noted that in 1999 and 2004 the Legislature amended Penal Code section 1202.4 - the restitution statute that applies in adult criminal cases - to include specified derivative victims; but the Legislature did not similarly amend section 730.6. (In re Scott H., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 521.) Despite this difference in statutory language, the California Constitution requires that section 730.6 be interpreted to include derivative victims. Article I, section 28 of the Constitution, as amended by Proposition 9, outlines victim's rights, including restitution, and more broadly defines "victim." (Id. at p. 522.) Moreover, the constitutional provisions specifically refer to juvenile delinquency proceedings. (Id. at p. 523.) Here, the victim's family members fall within the constitutional definition, despite the more restrictive language of section 730.6. The Court of Appeal held that to the extent section 730.6 conflicts with the Constitution, the constitutional provisions control. (Id. at p. 522.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/30/15)

Crime Victims Action Alliance (co-source)

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (co-source)
AFSCME
AFSCME, Local 685

Association of Deputy District Attorneys

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California District Attorneys Association

Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union

Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/30/15)

Youth Law Center

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, a co-sponsor of this bill, states: "Currently there are conflicting definitions of 'victim' in the Penal Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code. The Penal Code defines a 'victim' as the direct victim or a derivative victim (a parent, grandparent, siblings, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim, or was at the time of the crime, living in the household of the victim). Under the Welfare and Institutions Code, a victim's immediate family members are not entitled to restitution for their out-of-pocket, crime related expenses because they do not fall within the section's code definition of 'victim.' …

"Because the Welfare and Institution Code definition of 'victim' does not mirror Penal Code definition of a 'victim,' a victim's immediate family, who suffered a loss as a result of the criminal activity of a minor, as opposed to an adult, may not be awarded restitution for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the direct victim's losses. (i.e. a mother of a minor victim may only be compensated for expenses she incurred paying for her child's mental health counseling, not her own.)

"Since Welfare and Institutions Code Section 730.6(j) does not mirror Penal Code Section 1202.4(f), as it pertains to the definition of 'victim,' our office has had to rely on the court's interpretation of the statute, as opposed to its unambiguous language to obtain restitution orders on behalf of derivative victims simply because the offender is a minor as opposed to an adult."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Youth Law Center, "Because there are no limits on the amount of restitution that young people can be ordered to pay and because judges cannot consider a youth's ability to pay in determining what restitution to order, many young people leave the juvenile justice system with restitution debts so high that repaying them is a practical impossibility.

"The purpose of restitution is three-fold: to aid in a young person's rehabilitation, to deter future delinquent behavior, and to make the victim whole. When a juvenile court orders restitution that is beyond a young person's ability to pay, none of these goals are achieved. The likelihood that a victim will be made whole is significantly diminished, and the young person is burdened with a debt that will make it more difficult to begin his or her life as a responsible and law-abiding member of the community.

"SB 651 would impose a further burden on young people who are struggling to turn their lives around by greatly expanding the definition of victim to include a number of potential new restitution claimants. Such an expansion increases the odds that restitution will be ordered in an amount that is beyond a young person's ability to pay. We are particularly concerned that SB 651 expands the definition of victim to include a 'corporation, business trust, estate, partnership, association, joint venture, government, government subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity.' Adding this large new category to the definition of victim will add significantly to the costs that are imposed on young people, adding a further barrier to rehabilitation

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 6/29/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Rendon, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NO VOTE RECORDED: Gipson, Roger Hernández, Low, O'Donnell, Perea, Ridley-Thomas

Prepared by: Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /

7/1/15 11:49:56

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 651

Author:(Leyva)

As Amended Ver:June 23, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUMMARY: Conforms the definition of "victim" for purposes of restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings to the definition of "victim" applicable in adult criminal proceedings. Specifically, this bill adds the following to the definition of a "victim" for purposes of the restitution statute applicable in juvenile dependency proceedings:

1. A corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime; and

2. A person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who satisfies any of the following conditions:

   1. At the time of the crime was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim;

   2. At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim;

   3. At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a relationship listed above;

   4. Is another family member of the victim, including, but not limited to, the victim’s fiancé or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or,

   5. Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that it is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.

2. Provides that restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.

3. Defines "victim" for purposes of the Victim's Bill of Rights as "a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act." The definition "also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated."

4. Requires victim restitution from adult criminal defendants who have been sentenced by the court in every case in which a victim has suffered an economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct.

5. Provides for victim restitution from minors who have been found by the juvenile court to have committed a crime.

6. Creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has legal custody of a minor is jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of restitution, fines, and penalty assessments.

7. States that a "victim" for purposes of restitution in a juvenile delinquency proceeding includes the following (in addition to the actual victim):

   1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim; and

   2. Any governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or privately owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material and that has sustained an economic loss as the result of specified criminal violations.

8. States that a victim for purposes of restitution in adult criminal proceedings includes the following:

   1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim;

   2. A corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime;

   3. A person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who satisfies any of the following conditions:

      1. At the time of the crime was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim;

      2. At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim;

      3. At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to an immediate family member;

      4. Is another family member of the victim, including, but not limited to, the victim's fiancé or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or

      5. Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim;

   4. A person who is eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund; and

   5. A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or privately owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, and that has sustained an economic loss as the result of specified criminal violations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Senate Bill 651 expands the definition of a victim within the Welfare and Institutions Code so that it includes family members, guardians and significant others as 'derivative' victims of a crime committed by a minor. The changes in the definition would match the language in the Penal Code.

"Under the revised definition, direct and derivative victims are eligible for compensation for out-of-pocket costs that resulted from a crime committed against them by a minor. No victim should ever be in a position to not be eligible for restitution simply because of an inconsistency in state law."

Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000962

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015

Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 651

Author:(Leyva) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2015

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY: Conforms the definition of "victim" for purposes of restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings to the definition of "victim" applicable in adult criminal proceedings. Specifically, this bill: Adds the following to the definition of a "victim" for purposes of the restitution statute applicable in juvenile dependency proceedings:

1. A corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime; and
   
   

2. A person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who satisfies any of the following conditions:
   
   

   1. At the time of the crime was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim;
      
      

   2. At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim;
      
      

   3. At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a relationship listed above;
      
      

   4. Is another family member of the victim, including, but not limited to, the victim’s fiancé or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or,
      
      

   5. Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that it is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A).)
   
   

2. Provides that restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).)
   
   

3. Defines "victim" for purposes of the Victim's Bill of Rights as "a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act." The definition "also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e).)
   
   

4. Requires victim restitution from adult criminal defendants who have been sentenced by the court in every case in which a victim has suffered an economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f).)
   
   

5. Provides for victim restitution from minors who have been found by the juvenile court to have committed a crime. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(B) & (h).)
   
   

6. Creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has legal custody of a minor is jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of restitution, fines, and penalty assessments. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.7, subd. (a).)
   
   

7. States that a "victim" for purposes of restitution in a juvenile delinquency proceeding includes the following (in addition to the actual victim):
   
   

   1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim; and
      
      

   2. Any governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or privately owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material and that has sustained an economic loss as the result of specified criminal violations. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (j).)
      
      

8. States that a victim for purposes of restitution in adult criminal proceedings includes the following:
   
   

   1. The immediate surviving family of the actual victim;
      
      

   2. A corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime;
      
      

   3. A person who has sustained economic loss as the result of a crime and who satisfies any of the following conditions:
      
      

      1. At the time of the crime was the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim;
         
         

      2. At the time of the crime was living in the household of the victim;
         
         

      3. At the time of the crime was a person who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to an immediate family member;
         
         

      4. Is another family member of the victim, including, but not limited to, the victim's fiance or fiancee, and who witnessed the crime; or
         
         

      5. Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim;
         
         

   4. A person who is eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund; and
      
      

   5. A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or privately owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, and that has sustained an economic loss as the result of specified criminal violations. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (k).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Senate Bill 651 expands the definition of a victim within the Welfare and Institutions Code so that it includes family members, guardians and significant others as ‘derivative’ victims of a crime committed by a minor. The changes in the definition would match the language in the Penal Code.
   
   "Under the revised definition, direct and derivative victims are eligible for compensation for out-of-pocket costs that resulted from a crime committed against them by a minor. No victim should ever be in a position to not be eligible for restitution simply because of an inconsistency in state law."
   
   

2. Constitutionally Protected Right to Victim Restitution: The right of a victim to restitution from the person convicted of a crime from which the victim suffers a loss as result of the criminal activity became a constitutional right when adopted by vote of the people in June 1982 as part of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 added article I, section 28, subdivision (b), to the California Constitution, and provided:
   
   "It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.
   
   "Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted persons in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss, unless compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary. The Legislature shall adopt provisions to implement this section during the calendar year following adoption of this section."
   
   The Proposition was not self-executing, but rather directed the Legislature to adopt implementing legislation. (People v. Vega-Hernández (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1084.) In response, the Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1203.04 (repealed section related to restitution as condition of probation). (People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 795, fn. 3.)
   
   The constitutional provisions regarding restitution were amended by the voters again in 2008, when they approved Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, also known as Marsy's Law. The amendments, among other things, make clear that a victim is entitled to restitution, expanded the definition of a victim to include a representative of a deceased victim, and gave that representative the ability to enforce a victim's right. (See People v. Runyan (2012) 54 Cal.4th 849, 858-859.)
   
   The current definition of a "victim" under the California Constitution includes the following: a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted com-mission of a crime or delinquent act; the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian; and a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated. (Cal. Const. art I, § 28(e).) The term "victim" excludes a person in custody for an offense, the accused, and a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a minor victim. (Ibid.)
   
   The statutory definition of a "victim" differs from the constitutional definition and is broader. (See California Judges Benchguides, Restitution, revised 2013, §§ 83.53 & 83.54, http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/docs/forms/victims/restitution/Benchguide.pdf.) A "victim" under Penal Code section 1202.4 is any individual who has suffered economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime of which the defendant was convicted. (Pen. Code, §1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) A "victim" also includes: the immediate surviving family of the actual victim; a corporation and other specified legal, commercial, or government entities when the entity is a direct victim of a crime; other individuals who suffered economic loss and who satisfy certain familial or other close relationships with the direct victim, such as a primary caretaker or a minor victim, a fiancée, or present and former household members; a person eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund; and a government entity responsible for repairing public or private property damaged by vandalism. (Pen. Code, §1202.4, subd. (k).)
   
   This bill adopts the broader, statutory definition of a victim for purposes of restitution in juvenile cases.
   
   

3. Recent Case Law: In In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 515, the Second District Court of Appeal held that in light of constitutional mandates, a victim's family members are included within the class of "victims" entitled to restitution in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Appellant, who was 17 years old when he committed a violation of lewd acts upon a child, appealed the trial court's order awarding restitution to the victim's family for mental health counseling. In the first appeal, the court held the victim's family members, as derivative victims, were not entitled to restitution under the language of Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, the statute governing the issue of restitution in delinquency cases. (Id. at pp. 517-518.)
   
   The California Supreme Court granted review on its own motion and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider the opinion in light of Proposition 9, Marsy's Law. (In re Scott H., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 518.)
   
   In its analysis, the appellate court noted that in 1999 and 2004 the Legislature amended the restitution state applicable in adult criminal cases, Penal Code section 1202.4, to include specified derivative victims; but the Legislature did not similarly amend section 730.6. (In re Scott H., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 521.) Despite this difference in statutory language, the California Constitution requires that section 730.6 be interpreted to include derivative victims. Article I, section 28 of the Constitution, as amended by Proposition 9, outlines victim's rights, including restitution, and more broadly defines "victim." (Id. at p. 522.) Moreover, the constitutional provisions specifically refer to juvenile delinquency proceedings. (Id. at p. 523.) Here, the victim's family members fall within the constitutional definition, despite the more restrictive language of section 730.6. The Court of Appeal held that to the extent section 730.6 conflicts with the Constitution, the constitutional provisions control. (Id. at p. 522.)
   
   

4. Argument in Support: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, a co-sponsor of this bill, states, "Currently there are conflicting definitions of 'victim' in the Penal Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code. The Penal Code defines a 'victim' as the direct victim or a derivative victim (a parent, grandparent, siblings, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim, or was at the time of the crime, living in the household of the victim). Under the Welfare and Institutions Code, a victim's immediate family members are not entitled to restitution for their out-of-pocket, crime related expenses because they do not fall within the section's code definition of 'victim.' …
   
   "Because the Welfare and Institution Code definition of 'victim' does not mirror Penal Code definition of a 'victim,' a victim's immediate family, who suffered a loss as a result of the criminal activity of a minor, as opposed to an adult, may not be awarded restitution for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the direct victim's losses. (i.e. a mother of a minor victim may only be compensated for expenses she incurred paying for her child's mental health counseling, not her own.)
   
   "Since Welfare and Institutions Code Section 730.6(j) does not mirror Penal Code Section 1202.4(f), as it pertains to the definition of 'victim,' our office has had to rely on the court's interpretation of the statute, as opposed to its unambiguous language to obtain restitution orders on behalf of derivative victims simply because the offender is a minor as opposed to an adult."
   
   

5. Argument in Opposition: According to the Youth Law Center, "Because there are no limits on the amount of restitution that young people can be ordered to pay and because judges cannot consider a youth's ability to pay in determining what restitution to order, many young people leave the juvenile justice system with restitution debts so high that repaying them is a practical impossibility.
   
   "The purpose of restitution is three-fold: to aid in a young person's rehabilitation, to deter future delinquent behavior, and to make the victim whole. When a juvenile court orders restitution that is beyond a young person's ability to pay, none of these goals are achieved. The likelihood that a victim will be made whole is significantly diminished, and the young person is burdened with a debt that will make it more difficult to begin his or her life as a responsible and law-abiding member of the community.
   
   "SB 651 would impose a further burden on young people who are struggling to turn their lives around by greatly expanding the definition of victim to include a number of potential new restitution claimants. Such an expansion increases the odds that restitution will be ordered in an amount that is beyond a young person's ability to pay. We are particularly concerned that SB 651 expands the definition of victim to include a 'corporation, business trust, estate, partnership, association, joint venture, government, government subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity.' Adding this large new category to the definition of victim will add significantly to the costs that are imposed on young people, adding a further barrier to rehabilitation."
   
   

6. Related Legislation: SB 456 (Block) makes an adult or juvenile offender convicted of making a criminal threat to discharge a firearm on campus liable for the reasonable costs of an emergency response by a public agency. SB 456 is pending hearing in this committee today.
   
   

7. Prior Legislation: AB 576 (Torres), Chapter 454, Statutes of 2009, expanded the definition of a "victim" for the purposes of restitution to include any governmental entity responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring public and privately owned property defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified, and has sustained economic loss as a result.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Co-Sponsor)
Crime Victims Action Alliance (Co-Sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League

Riverside Sheriffs Association

Opposition

California Public Defenders Association
Youth Law Center

Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: SB 651

Author: Leyva (D)

Amended: 4/29/15

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/21/15

AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone

SUBJECT: Juvenile conduct: victims

SOURCE: Crime Victims Action Alliance

Los Angeles County District Attorney

DIGEST: This bill makes the statutory definition of a victim in the context of restitution orders in juvenile delinquency matters the same as the definition of a victim in adult criminal sentencing statutes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States in the California Constitution that all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution from the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution must be ordered in every case without exception. Where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy restitution orders. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 28, (b)(13)(A)- (C).)

2. Broadly defines, in the California Constitution, the term “victim” to mean “a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term… also includes the person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated.” Cal. Const., Art. 1 § 28 (e).)

3. Provides for restitution orders in criminal convictions – enforceable as a civil judgment – to ensure that a victim of a crime who incurs any economic loss shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime. If a restitution order is made, the defendant has the right to a hearing before the court to dispute the determination of the amount of the order. A restitution order may be modified upon motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the defendant. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subds. (f) and (i).)

4. Provides that a restitution order shall be prepared by the court and identify each victim and each loss. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)

5. Generally provides for victim restitution and a victim restitution fine from minors found to have committed a crime by the juvenile court. Juvenile court restitution is largely parallel to or consistent with restitution law applicable to adult criminal cases. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6.)

6. Comprehensively defines a victim for purposes of adult criminal sentencing. The definition includes the following:

• The immediate surviving family of the actual victim.

• A corporation, other specified commercial or legal entity, a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, when such an entity is a direct victim of a crime.

• A person who has sustained economic loss from a crime and who, at the time of the crime, had the status or identity of one of the following:

• The parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim One who living in the household of the victim;

• One who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a familial relationship;

• A more broadly defined family member of the victim who witnessed the crime, such as the victim’s fiancé or fiancé;

• The primary caretaker of a minor victim;

• A person eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund; or

• A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (k).)

7. Defines a victim for purposes of restitution in a juvenile case to include:

• The immediate surviving family of the actual victim; or

• A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6, subd. (j).)

8. Provides, in decisional law, that a juvenile court has the authority to issue a broad restitution order, consistent with the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court. (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 847, 854-855.)

9. Defines in the California Constitution define a victim as “a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term ‘victim’ also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e), italics added.)

10. Provides, in decisional law, that a juvenile court restitution orders must comply with the broad definition of a victim in the California Constitution. (In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4^th 515, 522.)

This bill defines a victim for purposes of restitution in juvenile delinquency matters to be the same as the definition of a victim for purposes of restitution orders in adult criminal sentencing.

Background

Full restitution to a victim of criminal activity is required by the California Constitution. Criminal activity includes a delinquent act. The definition in the California Constitution of a victim is quite broad. Appellate courts have found that the Constitution requires that scope of restitution in juvenile delinquency matters must be essentially equivalent to restitution in adult criminal cases. This bill makes the statutory provisions in juvenile delinquency restitution essentially the same is in adult criminal matters.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/4/15)

Crime Victims Action Alliance (co-source)

Los Angeles County District Attorney (co-source)

AFSCME
AFSCME, Local 685
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys

California District Attorneys Association

County Probation Officers Union

Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/4/15)

Youth Law Center

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author and sponsor argue:

“Currently, [the juvenile court restitution statute does not include a direct victim’s] immediate family members as being entitled to restitution for ….crime-related expenses because they do not fall within the definition of a victim in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 730.6(j).) Because that section does not mirror the definition of a victim in Penal Code Section 1202.4 (f), the Los Angeles County District Attorney has had to rely on the appellate courts’ interpretation of the statute to obtain restitution orders on behalf of victims in juvenile court cases.

“The court in In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4^th 515 considered whether the family members of the victim of a lewd conduct offense committed by a juvenile offender were entitled to restitution for mental health counseling fees. The juvenile court ordered restitution for the therapy, but the juvenile court order was reversed by the Court of Appeal because the family members were not specifically defined as victims in the juvenile court restitution statute. The California Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeal and directed the court to reconsider its decision in light of [the expansive definition of a victim] in the California Constitution. Had the Welfare and Institutions Code mirrored the Penal Code restitution provisions, the juvenile court restitution order would have stood without the need for a Supreme Court decision.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Youth Law Center states in opposition, “This bill will amend Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 to greatly expand the definition of victim, including adding a wide variety of businesses and legal entities to the definition. S.B. 651 will saddle young people involved in the juvenile justice system with debts that will impede their ability to reintegrate into society and become productive citizens.”

Prepared by: Jerome McGuire / PUB. S. /

5/15/15 14:19:46

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 651 Hearing Date: April 21, 2015

Subject: Juvenile Conduct: Victims

HISTORY

Source: Los Angeles County District Attorney; Crime Victims Action Alliance

Prior Legislation: None

Support: California District Attorneys Association; Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 685; Association of Deputy District Attorneys

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to make the definition of a victim in the context of restitution orders in juvenile delinquency matters the same as the definition of a victim in adult criminal sentencing.

Existing provisions in the California Constitution state that all crime victims have the right to seek and secure restitution from the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution must be ordered in every case without exception. Where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution, all money, or property collected from the defendant must be first applied to satisfy restitution orders. (Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A)-(C).)

Existing law provides for restitution orders in criminal convictions – enforceable as a civil judgment – to ensure that a victim of a crime who incurs any economic loss shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime. If a restitution order is made, the defendant has the right to a hearing before the court to dispute the determination of the amount of the order. A restitution order may be modified upon motion of the district attorney, the victim or victims, or the defendant. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subds. (f) and (i).)

Existing law provides that a restitution order shall be prepared by the court and identify each victim and each loss. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).)

Existing law generally provides for victim restitution and a victim restitution fine from minors found to have committed a crime by the juvenile court. Juvenile court restitution is largely parallel to or consistent with restitution law applicable to adult criminal cases. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6.)

Existing law comprehensively defines a victim for purposes of adult criminal sentencing. The definition includes the following:

• The immediate surviving family of the actual victim.

• A corporation, other specified commercial or legal entity, a government or governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, when such an entity is a direct victim of a crime.

• A person who has sustained economic loss from a crime and who, at the time of the crime, had the status or identity of one of the following:

  • The parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child, or grandchild of the victim One who living in the household of the victim;

  • One who had previously lived in the household of the victim for a period of not less than two years in a relationship substantially similar to a familial relationship;

  • A more broadly defined family member of the victim who witnessed the crime, such as the victim’s fiancé or fiancé;

  • The primary caretaker of a minor victim;

  • A person eligible to receive assistance from the Restitution Fund;

  • A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Pen. Code § 1202.4, subd. (k).)

Existing law defines a victim for purposes of restitution in a juvenile case to include:

• The immediate surviving family of the actual victim;

• A governmental entity that is responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public or private owned property that has been defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, as specified. (Welf. and Inst. Code § 730.6, subd. (j).)

Existing decisional law provides that a juvenile court has the authority to issue a broad restitution order, consistent with the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court. (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 847, 854-855.)

Existing provisions of the California Constitution define a victim as “a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term ‘victim’ also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically incapacitated.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e), italics added.)

Existing decisional law provides that a juvenile court restitution orders must comply with the broad definition of a victim in the California Constitution. (In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4^th 515, 522.)

This bill defines a victim for purposes of restitution in juvenile delinquency matters to be the same as the definition of a victim for purposes of restitution orders in adult criminal sentencing.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,

• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;

• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and

• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author and sponsor:

Currently, [the juvenile court restitution statute does not include a direct victim’s] immediate family members are not entitled to restitution for ….crime-related expenses because they do not fall within the definition of a victim in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 730.6(j).) Because that section does not mirror the definition of a victim in Penal Code Section 1202.4 (f), the Los Angeles County District Attorney has had to rely on the appellate courts’ interpretation of the statute to obtain restitution orders on behalf of victims in juvenile court cases.

The court in In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4^th 515 considered whether the family members of the victim of a lewd conduct offense committed by a juvenile offender were entitled to restitution for mental health counseling fees. The juvenile court ordered restitution for the therapy, but the juvenile court order was reversed by the Court of Appeal because the family members were not specifically defined as victims in the juvenile court restitution statute. The California Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeal and directed the court to reconsider its decision in light of [the expansive definition of a victim] in the California Constitution. Had the Welfare and Institutions Code mirrored the Penal Code restitution provisions, the juvenile court restitution order would have stood without the need for a Supreme Court decision.

2. The California Constitution and Appellate Decisions Expansively Define the term “Victim” in the Context of Restitution Orders in Juvenile Delinquency Cases

As noted in the author’s statement, appellate decisions have held that juvenile delinquency restitution orders must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution that broadly define a crime victim. (In re Scott H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4^th 515, 522.) Further, as the major goal or purpose of the juvenile court is rehabilitation of a delinquent minor, restitution orders need not exactly match the economic losses caused by the minor’s conduct. (In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 847, 854-855.)

In considering other bills, committee members have expressed concern about the ability of minors to pay large restitution orders. The Constitution requires full restitution to victims of delinquent acts. The court can decline to order a juvenile to pay full restitution if it finds “compelling and extraordinary reasons” to do so. However, “a minor’s inability to pay [is] not a compelling or extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution order.”

Arguably, the Constitution requires a juvenile court to order a delinquent minor to pay restitution to essentially the same extent as required by criminal sentencing provisions. If that is correct, making the juvenile restitution statute consistent with adult the relevant adult statute will provide clarity for juvenile court judges and will avoid the expenditure of appellate court resources and time for challenges by prosecutors of juvenile court restitution orders.

--END--