This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, an undercover narcotics officer, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors: attempted tampering with evidence and embezzlement. During his undercover operations, the Defendant allegedly stole drugs and misused funds provided for drug purchases. This misconduct led to the dismissal of cases in which the Defendant was a material witness, causing financial losses to the police department (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Curry County: The trial court ordered the Defendant to pay $7,640.22 in restitution to the City of Clovis Police Department, finding a sufficient causal link between the Defendant's criminal activities and the department's losses (paras 4, 20).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court lacked authority to order restitution under Section 31-17-1 because (1) the misdemeanors lacked a causal relationship to the claimed damages, and (2) the police department was not a "victim" under the statute. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the restitution amount was excessive and should be limited to $211, the amount embezzled (paras 1, 5, 9, 20).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the police department qualified as a "victim" under Section 31-17-1 and that the Defendant's actions caused the department's financial losses, including salary, expense money, and drug purchase funds. The State argued that the restitution amount was appropriate (paras 3-4, 7, 15).
Legal Issues
- Was the police department a "victim" entitled to restitution under Section 31-17-1?
- Did the Defendant's criminal activities have a sufficient causal relationship to the department's financial losses to justify restitution?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's restitution order, holding that the police department was a "victim" under Section 31-17-1, the Defendant's actions caused the department's losses, and the restitution amount was not an abuse of discretion (paras 21-22).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Alarid J. concurring):
The Court held that the police department qualified as a "victim" under Section 31-17-1 because it is a political subdivision of the state and thus a "person" under the statute (paras 6-7). The Defendant's criminal activities, including tampering with evidence and embezzlement, directly caused the department's financial losses, which were reasonably foreseeable (paras 10-16). The restitution amount of $7,640.22, including salary, expense money, and drug purchase funds, was appropriate because the department did not receive the benefit of the Defendant's employment due to his misconduct (paras 17-19). The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination of the restitution amount (para 20).
Per Bustamante J. (dissenting in part):
Bustamante J. agreed with the majority on most points but dissented regarding the inclusion of the Defendant's wages in the restitution order. He argued that wages paid under the employment contract were not "actual damages" under Section 31-17-1 because they were one step removed from the direct causal relationship required by the statute. While the expense money and drug purchase funds were properly included, the wages were not directly tied to the Defendant's criminal activities (paras 23-28).