After Johnson pleaded guilty, Pool’s family submitted a restitution request on behalf of Pool’s estate, claiming a total financial loss of $13,253.80. See Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1 (2012); see also Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b) (2012) (defining “victim” to include family members of a deceased person). The family asserted that the crime cost the estate $3,480 in house repairs, $5,485.39 in personal property damage, $1,500 in house closing costs, $3,080.41 for the loss of Pool’s car, and $800 in legal fees. The family also asserted that Pool’s insurance company had reimbursed the estate for $7,468.48, but it is *63 not clear from the record whether the family’s request included or excluded this amount.

State v. Borg · 2013 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Hughes v. State · 2012 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Caldwell · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nelson · 2011 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Gaiovnik · 2011 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of H.A.D. · 2009 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hughes · 2008 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Simion · 2008 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Palubicki · 2007 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Cram · 2006 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Smith · 2003 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Lindsey · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bjork · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Tenerelli · 1999 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Pflepsen · 1999 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Steinbuch v. State · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Terpstra · 1996 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Maidi · 1995 20 citations

OPINION STRINGER, Justice. On June 3, 1993, appellant, an Algerian citizen, was convicted of two counts of interfering with parental or custodial rights in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 1(4) and (6) (1994) after taking his two minor children to Algeria in violation of a Stipulation for Temporary Relief. Appellant argues the sentencing court erred in imposing upon appellant, in addition to a sentence of six months incarceration under a stay of imposition of sentence and probation for two years on each count, a restitution order for $147,-251.27,1 representing expenses incurred by the children’s mother in “counter-abducting” the children from Algeria. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and restitution order. State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414 (Minn.App.1994). This court granted appellant’s petition for further review solely on the issue of restitution. We affirm. Appellant and A.M., an American citizen, met at the University of Cannes in the fall of 1983. In July 1984, they were married in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A daughter was bom in June 1985, and the following August the family moved to Algeria. A son was born in Algeria in June 1988. Both children have dual United States and Algerian citizenship. In December 1989, A.M. and the children returned to Minnesota where appellant joined them in April 1990. In July 1991, appellant moved to Indiana where his brother resides. A.M. and the children remained in Minnesota because A.M. “didn’t think that [moving] would be the best thing for myself or my children or my marriage.” Appellant visited the children in Minnesota at the end of August 1991 for *282several weeks. After appellant returned to Indiana, A.M. discovered the children’s Algerian and United States passports were missing. Appellant initially denied, but later admitted taking them. In October 1991, appellant and A.M. agreed to divorce and that A.M. would commence the divorce proceeding because appellant had not yet established residency in Indiana. Appellant requested liberal visitation privileges and A.M. verbally agreed appellant could take the children to Indiana during a school holiday from Monday, October 14, 1991 through Friday, October 18, 1991. The week before appellant arrived to take the children, A.M. spoke with her attorneys about her concern that appellant might seek to keep the children in Indiana. Her lawyers advised her to execute a Stipulation for Temporary Relief and to serve the divorce papers on appellant when he returned to Burnsville, Minnesota. Upon appellant’s arrival in Burnsville on Friday, October 11, 1991, he returned the children’s United States passports to A.M., but retained their Algerian passports. The next day, Saturday, October 12, appellant was served with the Summons and Petition for divorce, and appellant and A.M. reviewed the Stipulation for Temporary Relief. Appellant objected to a provision prohibiting either party from removing the children from the continental United States. After telephone consultation with A.M.’s attorneys, the parties altered the Stipulation to require appellant to return the children’s American passports to A.M. and to specifically provide for a week of visitation in Indiana, subject to the condition that appellant return the children to their mother in Minnesota by midnight on October 20, 1991. Appellant and A.M. thereupon signed the Stipulation and initialed the alterations on Sunday, October 13, 1991. On Monday, October 14, 1991, appellant and the children, then ages six and three, left for Indiana. Appellant called A.M. from Indiana the next day and asked her to wire money to Algeria, stating he would pay her back when he returned the children at the end of the week; A.M. wired $1,200 to Algeria. On Saturday, October 19, 1991, the day before appellant was required to return the children as provided in the Stipulation, appellant left a message at A.M.’s parents’ home indicating he could be reached at his family’s home in Algeria. When A.M. telephoned appellant in Algeria, appellant told her he intended to keep the children in Algeria, that she “was no longer their mother, and that [she] should start a new life and forget about them.” At trial, the state introduced a series of letters from appellant to A.M. written while appellant and the children were in Algeria. The letters encouraged A.M. to return to Algeria, but clearly indicated he would not permit her to return with the children to the United States. While the trial court did not explore in depth the avenues pursued by A.M. to recover her children, it appears from the record that she was advised through legal counsel in Minnesota, France, and Algeria, and through the Algerian Desk at the U.S. State Department, that no international treaties honoring her parental rights were applicable as to Algeria, and under Algerian law, the children would not be permitted to leave the country without their father’s consent. A.M. thereupon contacted the “International Program Group,” a team of former CIA and FBI special forces agents, and retained them to recover her children from Algeria. After an initial aborted attempt, the counter-abduction succeeded and A.M. ultimately regained custody of the children in April 1992. AM.’s parents financed their daughter’s efforts to contact and retrieve the children, at a cost of approximately $141,-527.72. Appellant voluntarily returned to the United States to face charges in November 1992. The trial court found appellant guilty of two counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 1(4) and (6) and referred the matter to Dakota County Community Corrections for a presentenee investigation. The presentence investigation report, issued prior to the receipt of the victim’s affidavit of *283restitution, initially recommended restitution in the amount of $10,000, payable in $200 per month installments. On August 24,1993, the court sentenced appellant to six months in jail under a stay of imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for two years for each count, subject to several conditions, among them: [Defendant] is to pay restitution as determined by Community Corrections on a schedule to be determined by Community Corrections to pay at least $200.00 per month towards restitution during the period of probation. Any sum which remains unpaid at the termination of probation shall be entered as a civil judgment against this defendant. In a letter to the court dated September 1, 1993, Community Corrections recommended restitution in the amount of $5,723.55, on the theory that while reimbursement for the counter-abduction expenses was appropriate, A.M.’s decision to incur these expenses was her own personal choice and her recovery should be pursued through the civil court system.2 The court ordered a restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing on November 8, 1993, the court found that the counter-abduction expenses properly qualified as restitution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1, and ordered restitution in the amount of $147,527.27, plus future losses for counseling for A.M. or the children. Based on the court’s finding that appellant earned $6.50 per hour, the court ordered appellant to pay restitution in installments of $200 per month until the sum is paid in full. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and the restitution order, holding that counter-abduction expenses properly qualify as criminal restitution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611A.04. State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414, 418 (Minn.App.1994). This court granted appellant’s petition for review on the issue of restitution. Appellant does not contest the dollar amount of restitution. Rather, he argues that the restitution order is inappropriate for three reasons: (1) the sentencing court erred in disregarding Community Corrections’ restitution recommendation; (2) for public policy reasons, “counter-abduction” expenses should not qualify for restitution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 and Minn. Stat. § 611A.04; and (3) the sentencing court failed to properly consider appellant’s ability to pay as required by Minn. Stat. § 611.045, subd. 1. As to appellant’s first argument that the sentencing court was bound to adopt Community Corrections’ restitution recommendation, appellant alleges that “the court did not have the authority to increase the amount of restitution ordered beyond what had been determined by Community Corrections.” Minnesota Statute § 609.135 (1994) governing stays of imposition or execution of sentences clearly provides that restitution is an intermediate sanction. Thus, while the court may designate an agent to seek information regarding the proper amount of restitution pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1994), the court cannot delegate its authority to impose restitution. State v. Henderson, 527 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Minn.1995) (holding that Special Supervision Program “is an intermediate sanction within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.135 [and] * * * is therefore beyond the authority of the Corrections Department to impose”). Consequently, the sentencing court did not err in disregarding Community Corrections’ restitution recommendation. Appellant’s second argument is the pivotal issue before the court — whether the restitution of “counter-abduction” expenses meets the criteria for restitution under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.26, subd. 4 and 611A.04. We conclude that the restitution order was proper in this respect. Restitution is a permissible provision in a sentence for conviction of depriving another of custodial or parental rights in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.26. Minn. Stat. § 609.10(5) *284(1994). The restitution statute, Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (1994), provides in pertinent part as follows: A victim of a crime has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge or juvenile delinquency-proceeding against the offender if the offender is convicted or found delinquent. The court, or a person or agency designated by the court, shall request information from the victim to determine the amount of restitution owed. * * * Information submitted relating to restitution must describe the items or elements of loss, itemize the total dollar amounts of restitution claimed, and specify the reasons justifying these amounts, if restitution is in the form of money or property. A request for restitution may include, but is not limited to, any out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime, including medical and therapy costs, replacement of wages and services, and funeral expenses. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1994) (emphasis added). Indeed, more germane to the facts of this case, the legislature has specifically expressed its intent that victims of parental abduction recover costs incurred in recovering abducted children. Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 provides: “In addition to any sentence imposed, the court may assess any expense incurred in returning the child against any person convicted of violating this section.” Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 (1994) (emphasis added). The broad language of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 strongly indicates a legislative intent to give wide discretion to the sentencing court when ordering restitution of expenses incurred in returning a child to the custodial parent. Clearly, the legislature could have limited the sentencing court’s discretion by drafting Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 to provide for “any reasonable expenses” as other state legislatures have done.3 Instead, our legislature chose not to use such a modifier to limit the scope of recoverable expenses under section 609.26, subd. 4, and the statute clearly and unambiguously provides the sentencing court with discretion to assess any expense incurred in returning the child. We have long held that where a statute’s meaning is clear, as we conclude it is in the present case, there is no room for judicial construction. Arlandson v. Humphrey, 224 Minn. 49, 27 N.W.2d 819 (1947); see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994). Thus, the court may not construe the statute to exempt certain types of expenses, even though we may consider these expenses inappropriate. To do so in the present case would run contrary to the clear language of both sections 611A.04 and 609.26, delegating the decision to the sentencing court. We therefore decline to interpret the statute to exclude the counter-abduction expenses ordered by the sentencing court, and we conclude that the order of restitution was within the sentencing court’s discretion. Our broad reading of Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 is consistent with the established policy objective of both the state and federal government to deter parental abduction,4 and *285with the broad discretion of trial judges to protect custodial and visitation rights. Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W.2d 39, 47 (Minn.1990) (citing Tischendorf v. Tischendorf, 321 N.W.2d 405 (Minn.1982) (upholding trial judge’s requirement that a noncustodial parent post bond before taking a child overseas for extended visitation), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1037, 103 S.Ct. 1426, 75 L.Ed.2d 787 (1983)). This court explicitly recognized the importance of Minn. Stat. § 609.26 in assisting victims of parental abductions because parents like A.M. do not have a civil cause of action for tortious interference with custodial rights. Larson, 460 N.W.2d at 47. In Larson we specifically noted that Minn. Stat. § 609.26 permits trial judges to impose costs incurred by the custodial parent in recovering a child. Id. at 46. We also note, however, that this ease raises concerns regarding whether the effect of this court’s affirmance of a restitution order that includes counter-abduction expenses effectively condones conduct potentially viola-tive of another nation’s laws. Although we do not condone such violations, this court is bound by the clear language of the statute enacted by the legislature, which does not provide an exception on such a basis. Indeed, it is the legislature’s, and not this court’s, responsibility to provide such exceptions to the statute. Finally, appellant argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by ordering restitution in the amount of $147,-251.27, payable in $200 per month installments, when appellant earns only $6.50 per hour and mathematically can never pay off the full restitution order at the monthly installment payment ordered. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 3, the order of restitution was docketed as a civil judgment. Thus, interest accrues on the unpaid balance pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.09, at a rate greater than appellant’s monthly payments. Therefore, appellant argues, the sentencing court neglected to consider his ability to pay as required by Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 (1994); The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of restitution, shall consider the following factors: (1) the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and (2) the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 (1994). The court of appeals affirmed the restitution award reasoning that the sentencing court properly considered appellant’s ability to pay when it ordered $200 per month installments. State v. Maidi, 520 N.W.2d 414, 419 (Minn.App.1994). We agree. Minnesota Statute § 611A.045 is not explicit as to how the court must consider the income, resources, and obligations of the appellant when imposing the restitution order. In view of Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(c),5 however, which permits the court to order partial restitution while permitting the full amount of restitution to be docketed as a civil judgment, we conclude that the legislature intended to give the courts wide flexibility to *286structure restitution orders that take into account a defendant’s ability to pay, including, as the court did here, a reduced monthly payment that is within the defendant’s means. This interpretation is consistent with the legislative history of Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1, which indicates the restitution statute was primarily intended to compensate victims.6 Construing Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 to permit a large restitution award, provided the court considers the defendant’s resources when imposing a payment schedule, is also consistent with this court’s holding in State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42 (Minn.1984). In Fader, we held that while restitution may have the dual purpose of rehabilitating the defendant and compensating the victim, the primary purpose is to compensate victims. Id. at 48. Consequently, we conclude that the sentencing court properly considered the appellant’s resources when it applied Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

+ 17 more citations in this opinion.

Larson v. Dunn · 1990 2 citations

III. The crucial issue for this court is whether to create a tort of "intentional interference with custodial rights." The trend in the past years has been toward recognizing this tort. Approximately one third of the state appellate courts have ruled on this issue.[3] Despite what other *45 jurisdictions have decided, this court must base its decision on what is the best public policy for the State of Minnesota. Having witnessed a steady increase in family law litigation over the past 25 years, our courts and the legislature have learned that we must carefully consider, in disputes over children, not only the rights of parents but more importantly, the welfare and best interests of their children. Berndt v. Berndt, 292 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1980); LaBelle v. LaBelle, 296 Minn. 173, 207 N.W.2d 291 (1973); State v. Waslie, 277 Minn. 446, 152 N.W.2d 755 (1967); Minn. Stat. § 257.025 (1988). See Chambers, Rethinking the Substantive Rules for Custody Disputes in Divorce, 83 Mich.L. Rev. 477, 481 n. 7 (1984). In deciding whether to create this tort (which is derivative of custodial rights), we must take the interests of the children involved as an important policy consideration. Cf. Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d at 128 (Wolle, J. dissenting). This new tort would create a new burden on children who are already dislocated by the dissolution of their parents' marriage. Abducted children are almost always young. The abductors are often the noncustodial parent (as in this case, the mother, in many cases, the father) assisted by immediate family or relatives. Children of divorce generally love their parents and want a loving and helpful relationship with both parents once the marriage is dissolved. With this tort, a child may be forced to testify against his or her own mother or father. In this case, the father submitted an affidavit from Jessica relating to the actions of her mother and grandparents. One can only imagine the torment of a young child forced to testify in writing or verbally against a parent he or she loves. Jessica had lived with her mother for over 8 years before she was returned to her father. Evidence is piling up that children can be devastated by divorce, and their continuing development can be detrimentally affected by subsequent events. See, e.g., Chambers, 83 Mich.L.Rev. at 507 (noting that divorce is a time of anxiety and dislocation); Schepard, Taking Children Seriously: Promoting Cooperative Custody after Divorce, 64 Tex.L.Rev. 687, 703-04 (1985) (divorce causes "significant and threatening instability in a child's life" causing emotional damage). For the good of our children, the law should seek to promote such harmony as is possible in families fractured by the dissolution *46 process. At a minimum, the law should not provide a means of escalating intrafamily warfare. This action puts members of Jessica's family her mother, grandparents, her uncle at odds with her father, and places her in the middle. It is clear that this tort would be used as a new weapon in such disputes. Already this litigation has precipitated bitter accusations and contradictory affidavits. The interest in compensation should not outweigh the effects of bitter accusations on young children. This court, in denying a cause of action for alienation of a child's affection after our legislature had abolished this action, reasoned that [t]he circumstances under which the right has here been asserted demonstrate the potential for grave abuses, in which a child becomes the object of intrafamily controversy and, indeed, a pawn in disputes over monetary matters. In the more usual case of marriage dissolution resulting in deteriorated relationships, a cause of action by one parent against another for alienation of a child's affections would exacerbate the unhappy relationships and become a strategic tool for advantageous use of one family member over another. Bock v. Lindquist, 278 N.W.2d 326, 327-28 (Minn.1979). Creating this new tort would create a new wrong. It would place innocent children in the middle of a vigorous, probably vicious, lawsuit between their parents. It would duplicate the ambivalence and dislocation of the dissolution itself. In this case the grandparents would defend themselves on the grounds that they reasonably believed their grandchild was abused and this would in effect cause relitigation of the original critical custody decision made in 1980. The law in Minnesota already provides redress for a custodial parent in such a situation. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04. This provision does not allow jury trial. It may be that, in this sensitive area of family law, a judge's discretion is better than a jury trial, at which a child would almost certainly have to testify. In any event, this would prevent additional litigation, which would place a burden of stress on the abducted child. In addition, our parental kidnapping statute may provide for an award of costs incurred in recovering the child. Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 4 (1988). Further, emotional distress could possibly be recovered in egregious cases through the independent tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which Minnesota recognizes. See Hubbard v. United Press International, 330 N.W.2d 428, 439-39 (Minn.1983) (recognizing IIED). Minnesota already recognizes the action for lost services of the child. See Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n, 224 Minn. 180, 194-95, 28 N.W.2d 862, 871 (1947). Although the conduct in this case is egregious, and done in defiance of a court order, the proper remedy for such violation of the court's integrity lies in contempt and other such sanctions; not in providing the other party with compensation. Cf. Bock v. Lindquist, 278 N.W.2d 326, 328 (Minn. 1979) (denying parent tort recovery for alienation of child's affection, in part because other remedies make actions for alienation unnecessary and undesirable, e.g., habeas corpus, or contempt of court). This case also clearly illustrates the other penalties abductors will pay. The mother in this case has not seen her daughter since she was apprehended over three years ago. This tort will not deter parental abduction. The mother and grandparents in this case apparently believed they were protecting the child. A growing number of parents are hiding their children to protect them from physical and sexual abuse. See Myers, Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Visitation Litigation: Recommendations for Improved Fact Finding and Child Protection, 28 J.Fam.L. 1, 2 (1989). Studies show that allegations of sexual abuse, while sometimes fabricated, are very often genuine. Id. at 21. Family ties are normally stronger than the fear of money damages. If a parent or grandparent believes a child is in danger, that parent or grandparent will probably not stop to consider tort liability *47 before acting to protect the child. It will not add to the dignity of the law if grand-parents are sued for providing shelter to their grandchildren in such situations. The scope of liability under this new tort may also result in a proliferation of litigation. Liability under the tort is contemplated not only for physically taking the child but for such conduct as "providing the means by which the child was carried off." Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 124, text at note 32. Larson not only alleges certain affirmative acts by the grandparents and uncle but also alleges their failure to give correct information about Jessica's whereabouts, thereby delaying her discovery and aggravating his emotional and financial harm. Once we adopt the rule contemplated by the Restatement, it soon will become an integral part of Minnesota family law. Such a tort could be used as a weapon for revenge and continued hostility as is clearly apparent in this case. The Minnesota Legislature has dealt intelligently with this problem. Child abduction by the noncustodial parent is a serious crime.[4] The state has also adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) which provides a means for enforcing custody decrees across state lines. In addition our courts have broad discretion to protect custodial and visitation rights. Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 3 (custodial parent may not move child out of state if intent is to interfere with visitation rights) and subd. 4 (contempt of court for unwarranted denial or interference with visitation rights) (1988) id. at 518.176 (judicial supervision of custody and visitation rights). See Tischendorf v. Tischendorf, 321 N.W.2d 405, 412 (Minn.1982) (approving requirement that noncustodial parent post bond and provide transportation for adult companion to secure return of child to custodial parent after foreign visits), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1037, 103 S.Ct. 1426, 75 L.Ed.2d 787 (1983). It has been advocated by some that this tort will "fill in the gaps." Before taking such a step, which may profoundly and permanently affect the relationships between children, their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, a broader segment of our society should study, debate and consider this action, and if such a tort is to be adopted, decide how broad its scope and how far reaching its award of damages will be. Expanding the adversarial process to include this new tort is contrary to the best interests of children and will only intensify intrafamily conflict growing out of marriage dissolution without deterring parental abduction. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. POPOVICH, Chief Justice (dissenting). I concur with the majority on the issue of personal jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent on the issue of an action for interference with custodial rights and would affirm the court of appeals. The majority's emphasis on limited aspects of the case ignores those facets involving elemental fairness and honoring a custodial order.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee Vick, Appellant · 2025 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Reymundo Gonzalez · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton · 2023 40 citations

Separately, Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.04, .045 (2022), authorize and set forth the

board, if any, which detail any amounts paid by the board to the victim.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1a. When the CVRB pays reparations and then seeks restitution on behalf

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. 2. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 2a (2022), requires a district court to include

+ 37 more citations in this opinion.

Howard v. State · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re the Welfare of I.N.A. · 2017 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Christensen · 2017 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey · 2017 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Robert Neil Ackland · 2016 1 citation

The victim of a crime has a right to restitution if the perpetrator is convicted. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1 (2014). When determining whether to order restitution and in

State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Joseph Victor Pierce · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. A. H., Child. · 2016 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998). · 2016 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Lester Ray Wiley · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota · 2015 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota · 2015 5 citations

criminal charge.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2012). They “are entitled to

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Jolonda Rae Roberts v. State of Minnesota · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Abdulkadir Ali Mohamud v. State of Minnesota · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Lee Phillips · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Louis Steven Baratto · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander · 2014 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. George Alan Vanzee · 2014 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Wayne Brian Christensen · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Riggs · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Miller · 2014 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Knutson · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Maddox · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Borg · 2012 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Maxwell · 2011 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Anderson v. State · 2011 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Arends · 2010 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Meredyk · 2008 17 citations

OPINION HALBROOKS, Judge. Respondent was charged with multiple counts of felony theft for her part in a long-running swindle. She entered into a plea agreement with the state, part of which required her to pay substantial restitution to her victims. The district court accepted respondent’s guilty plea and sentenced her in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The state now challenges the district court’s subsequent modification of respondent’s restitution obligation, contending that the district court had no authority to modify respondent’s sentence with regard to restitution. In the alternative, the state argues that, even if the district court had the authority to modify respondent’s restitution, it abused its authority in doing so here. We conclude that while a district court has authority to modify the terms of a restitution obligation under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, its modification on this record was an abuse of discretion. We therefore reverse. . FACTS Beginning in the late 1990s, respondent engaged in an elaborate scheme in which she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from her grandparents, J.S. and R.S., who were 86 years old at the time appellant was charged, and her great-uncle, H.J., who was 83, by making repeated claims to them that she required substantial sums of money to pay court fees, attorney bills, fines, and other costs related to unspecified legal problems that she had. Respondent’s claims to be in legal trouble were fabricated. But in order to convince her grandparents and great-uncle of the veracity of her claims over a six-year period, respondent forged the signatures of 16 different judges of this state on more than 200 falsified legal documents and enlisted the assistance of another person who impersonated a court clerk. These falsified documents corroborated respondent’s claims about her legal problems and her ongoing need for money to resolve them. Respondent told her grandparents and great-uncle that she would repay them in full once she received a large settlement. This claim too was fictional. After respondent depleted her victims’ savings accounts through this scheme, she swindled them out of their pension and social-security checks. Eventually other family members became suspicious of respondent’s actions and contacted authorities. An investigation ensued, and in May 2005, respondent was charged with nine counts of felony theft by swindle and one count of felony aggravated forgery for stealing approximately $400,000 from her grandparents and great-uncle. The district court was initially reluctant to accept the guilty plea and negotiated agreement because the district court felt that respondent should serve time in prison. As a result, the district court rejected the plea agreement at the first sentencing hearing but set it *599for an additional hearing one week later. At the second sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the negotiated plea agreement, staying execution of respondent’s 42-month prison sentence, placing her on probation for 15 years, and requiring her to pay $400,000 in restitution to her victims as a condition of probation. Another condition of respondent’s probation was that she accept no gifts, financial assistance, or other payment from any of her victims. Two years later, respondent had paid less than $200 in restitution to each victim. In spite of the substantial harm that they have suffered, respondent’s victims have continually shown her great sympathy. They have repeatedly indicated that they view respondent as a valued member of the family and want only the best for her. Even after other family members raised strong concerns about respondent’s conduct, J.S., R.S., and H.J. stated that they did not want to involve the authorities and refused to assist in the criminal investigation once it was under way. Consistent with these attitudes, on April 4, 2007, respondent’s victims brought a motion to discharge the remaining balance of her restitution obligation, which was then more than $399,000. The district court held a hearing on the motion on April 16, 2007; neither respondent nor her attorney was present. Respondent’s grandparents were present and represented by counsel, but respondent’s great-uncle was not present because he was hospitalized. The state objected to the hearing on the ground that there was no statutory authority allowing victims to challenge restitution. Respondent’s grandfather testified that he wanted the remainder of respondent’s restitution obligation to be eliminated because he did not need or want the money and did not “want to leave a big debt” for respondent. He stated that the matter had “been bothering us [for] quite a while” and that he just wanted it “taken care of so that we can rest in peace.” Respondent’s grandmother testified that the restitution “doesn’t serve any purpose as far as we’re concerned, and it’s destroying [respondent], not giving her a chance to go on with her life.” She went on to state that “money ... has no value. And that’s why we want to give [respondent] a chance to be able to make a life for herself.” A close friend of respondent’s grandparents testified that the couple was fully competent to make this decision and that “this is what they want with all their heart.” In a subsequent order, the district court modified respondent’s restitution obligation by adding a new condition concerning how the obligation could be satisfied. The order directed “[t]he Department of Corrections ... to file an order judgment against [respondent] and thereafter to continue to collect restitution until ... [respondent] makes full restitution” or until a “satisfaction of [the] judgment is filed” by all three of respondent’s victims. The district court stated that this new condition “enable[d] the victims to determine whether or not the full amount of [the] restitution has been” met because if they file documentation stating that respondent has satisfied the judgment “this will end [respondent’s] restitution obligations” under the terms of the obligation as modified. In other words, the modified restitution allows respondent to satisfy the restitution obligation without paying the full amount to which she agreed as part of her plea agreement with the state. The remaining terms of respondent’s sentence were not altered. This appeal by the state follows.1 *600ISSUE Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying, over the state’s objection and at the request of the victims, the terms of a restitution obligation that was imposed as part of a negotiated plea agreement? ANALYSIS I. The state argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction or statutory authority to modify the terms of respondent’s restitution obligation under the circumstances. “Issues involving the authority and jurisdiction of the district court are legal issues, which we review de novo.” State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1, 23 (Minn.2004). While the imposition of a sentence within the prescribed limits is a judicial function, State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13, 18 (Minn.1982), “in the absence of statutory authorization, a [district] court has no sentencing power.” Miller v. State, 714 N.W.2d 745, 747 (Minn.App.2006) (quotation omitted). Thus, a district court has no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of a criminal sentence; this power is vested solely with the legislature. State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759, 764 (Minn.1999). Similarly, a district court has no inherent authority to modify previously imposed terms or conditions of a criminal sentence; such power is also vested with the legislature. See id. at 765 (stating that modification of a restitution obligation after a defendant’s probationary period has expired is not permitted because no statute or rule authorizes such a modification). “Therefore, in analyzing the legitimacy of [a] ... restitution order, [appellate courts] first must look to the legislature’s mandate with respect to restitution.” Id. at 764. Minnesota Statutes chapter 611A discusses, among other things, certain rights and remedies afforded victims of crime. One of these rights is “the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (2006). Accordingly, the district court is expressly authorized to order restitution when imposing a sentence after conviction of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.10, subd. 1(5), 609.125, subd. 1(4) (2006). A district court is also authorized to impose restitution when it stays imposition or execution of a defendant’s sentence. Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 1 (2006). But these statutes are silent with respect to a district court’s authority to modify previously imposed restitution and, therefore, provide no authority to engage in such modifications. See State v. Johnson, 743 N.W.2d 622, 626 (Minn.App.2008) (stating that “this court cannot add to a statute what the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks” (quotation omitted)). In arguing that the district court had no authority to modify the imposed restitution here, the state relies on Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b) (2006). This statute gives the district court the authority to amend or issue an order of restitution after the sentencing or dispositional hearing if: (1) the offender is on probation, committed to the commissioner of corrections, or on supervised release; *601(2) sufficient evidence of a right to restitution has been'submitted; and (3) the true extent of the victim’s loss or the loss of the Crime Victims Reparations Board was not known at the time of the sentencing or dispositional hearing, or hearing on the restitution request. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b). The state concedes that the first two elements under this section are met, but contends that the third element cannot be met because the extent of the victims’ losses were clearly established at the time of respondent’s sentencing by her own admissions that she stole approximately $400,000 and by her express agreement as part of the plea agreement that the amount of the loss for which she must pay restitution is $400,000. We agree. Because the third element of Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b), is not satisfied, the district court did not have the authority under this section to modify respondent’s ordered restitution. The state goes on to argue that because Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b), expressly addresses restitution modification and the statute’s requirements are not met, the district court had no authority to modify restitution. But this argument imposes an exclusivity on subdivision 1(b) that its plain language does not support. The statute contains no restrictive language prohibiting modification of restitution in other circumstances. Therefore, the state’s attempt to read such exclusivity into the statute in the face of silence is not proper. See Johnson, 743 N.W.2d at 626. Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, also addresses a district court’s ability to modify certain types of sentences and provides independent authority to district courts to undertake the modifications authorized in the rule. See Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d at 765 (noting how, in addition to the sentencing authority provided by certain statutes, “[t]he Rules of Criminal Procedure likewise grant courts authority” to modify the types of sentences discussed in rule 27.03, subd. 9). Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, authorizes a district court to “at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law” or to “at any time modify a sentence during either a stay of imposition or stay of execution of sentence except that the court may not increase the period of confinement.” This court has interpreted Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, as providing an accompanying grant of jurisdiction to a district court to perform the actions authorized by the rule. See State v. Cook, 617 N.W.2d 417, 418-19 (Minn.App.2000) (citing Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, for the proposition that a “district court has jurisdiction at any time to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law”). Respondent’s sentence falls within Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, because the district court stayed the execution of the imposed prison time for 15 years and modified the restitution aspect of respondent’s sentence less than two years later. Thus, while the district court had no authority to modify respondent’s restitution obligation under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (2006), it did have the authority to modify respondent’s sentence under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure because it did so during a stay of execution.2 *602II. The state argues that the district court erred in modifying the terms of respondent’s restitution obligation over its objection because the restitution was imposed as part of a negotiated plea agreement. A district court has broad discretion concerning matters of restitution as long as a sufficient factual basis underlies its decision regarding the ordered restitution. State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 281, 234 (Minn.App.2000). A district court’s restitution order will not be reversed unless it abuses this discretion. State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 672 (Minn.1999). The state raises several reasons that it contends render the particular terms of the district court’s modification an abuse of discretion. First, the state argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its sentencing power to respondent’s crime victims by allowing them to determine whether or not she has satisfied the restitution obligation. The principle that the state refers to prohibits a district court’s delegation of its authority to impose sentences — which includes imposition of terms and conditions of probation — because this is “exclusively a judicial function.” State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74, 80 (Minn.2004) (quotation omitted). Respondent’s restitution obligation was a condition of her probation and thus nondelegable. But it is both permissible and desirable to allow flexibility in implementing and administering the conditions that a district court imposes when sentencing a defendant, including conditions of probation. See State v. Henderson, 527 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Minn. 1995) (distinguishing between imposition and administration of a sentence and stating that “trial judges should not be burdened with administrative issues relating to the implementation of conditions of probation” imposed as part of a sentence). Here, the district court’s modification allows respondent to satisfy her restitution payment by either full payment of the $400,000, to be collected by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), or by her victims’ act of filing a satisfaction of judgment. In imposing this condition, the district court delegated no authority to the DOC; the DOC is only implementing the district court’s order by collecting the restitution until it is fully paid or until a satisfaction of judgment is filed. Similarly, the district court did not delegate any sentencing authority to respondent’s victims. The modification affects them only in that if they file a satisfaction of judgment, respondent’s restitution obligation is satisfied. But it is the district court that imposed this particular condition, not the victims. It is not uncommon for third-party assertions to be used by a district court in determining whether a defendant has met a condition of his or her sentence (e.g., a substance-abuse counselor asserting that a defendant convicted of driving while impaired has successfully completed an alcohol-abuse program imposed as a condition of the defendant’s sentence). Accordingly, this particular argument is without merit. But we are concerned about the fact that the restitution obligation that the district court modified was based on a negotiated plea agreement.3 Under the plea *603agreement, the state agreed not to recommend executed prison time in return for respondent agreeing, among- other things, to pay $400,000 in restitution. Given the victims’ attitudes toward respondent’s continued payment of restitution, under the district court’s modified order, respondent will almost assuredly never pay the amount she agreed to pay and that the state relied on when making the concessions contained in the original plea agreement. The facts here present the unique situation in which the disputed modification of a restitution obligation concerns the obligation’s potential cancellation. This is in contrast to past cases in which the dispute went to a district court’s later imposition of a restitution obligation when none initially existed or to a subsequent increase in the amount of the obligation. See, e.g., State v. Chapman, 362 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn.App.1985) (challenge to imposition of a restitution amount significantly higher than that which was contemplated as part of the plea agreement); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.App.1984) (challenge to imposition of a restitution obligation when, as part of a plea agreement, the parties agreed that defendant would be sentenced to executed prison time but there was no agreement as to probation or restitution). In short, this appeal presents an issue of first impression, with our research revealing no case law directly on point. Thus, we begin by examining the general principles informing the nature of plea agreements. While the law relating to contracts cannot be blindly applied to plea agreements, such agreements are in many ways analogous to a contract between the state and a defendant. “The essence of plea agreements ... is that they represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir.2005). An unqualified promise made as part of a plea agreement must be honored. Kochevar v. State, 281 N.W.2d 680, 687 (Minn.1979). Accordingly, we have stated that a plea agreement expressly omitting restitution “will severely limit” a district court’s otherwise broad discretion to impose such an obligation. See State v. Anderson, 520 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Minn.App.1994) (quotation omitted). Similarly, we believe that when a plea agreement expressly calls for a specific amount of restitution and the district court accepts the agreement, this also severely limits the district court’s discretion to subsequently alter the negotiated amount of the restitution. Plea agreements can be intricate, and alteration of one condition may alter the nature of the entire agreement. See State v. Misquadace, 629 N.W.2d 487, 491 (Minn.App.2001) (after finding the appellant’s sentence improper, reversing for re-sentencing instead of altering the imposed sentence because “[t]his was an intricate plea agreement involving many crimes.... Everything was interrelated and it would be inappropriate for this court to make piecemeal corrections without regard to the effect of the corrections on the plea bargain.”), aff'd, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn.2002). The modification here was significant, and the condition modified was not merely an ancillary aspect of the plea *604agreement. In modifying respondent’s restitution obligation in the manner that it did, the district court drastically altered the parties’ bargained-for exchange without the consent of respondent and over the state’s express objections. This is contrary to our case law, which indicates that a district court generally should not alter the terms of a restitution obligation negotiated . as part of a plea agreement if it materially changes the expectations of the parties to the bargain. See Chapman, 362 N.W.2d at 404 (concluding that imposition of a restitution amount that was approximately $31,000 greater than that which was contemplated as part of the plea agreement “materially alter[s] the expectations of the parties to the bargain” and allows for withdrawal of the plea (quotation omitted)); State v. Noreen, 354 N.W.2d 77, 78-79 (Minn.App.1984) (stating that imposition of a restitution obligation of $2,000 materially altered the expectations of the parties, allowing for withdrawal of a guilty plea). Given the sheer magnitude of the alteration to respondent’s restitution obligation and the fact that restitution went to the very foundation of the entire plea agreement, the district court’s modification materially altered the bargained-for exchange underlying the parties’ assent to the agreement. Respondent was not present at the modification hearing, but the state vigorously opposed the modification. And it is unlikely that the state would have agreed to the terms of the plea agreement absent respondent’s agreement to pay the substantial amount of restitution. By ordering the modification, the district court in effect forced the state to incorporate terms into the plea agreement to which it never consented and with which it does not agree. A district court must accept or reject a plea agreement on the terms as presented to the district court, Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.04, subd. 3, and cannot usurp the position of counsel by negotiating or determining the content of the agreement itself.4 See State v. Johnson, 279 Minn. 209, 216, 156 N.W.2d 218, 223 (1968) (stating that “the court should neither usurp the responsibility of counsel nor participate in the plea bargaining negotiation itself’). Yet the district court’s modification of a specifically negotiated term of respondent’s plea agreement effectively did just that. Furthermore, Minnesota law expressly addresses how uncollected restitution payments should be processed. If a crime victim, for whatever reason, does not claim his or her restitution payments required to be made by an offender, the payments are to be deposited in a designated crime-victims account maintained as part of the state treasury and paid out annually in the form of reparations to other crime victims. Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.04, subd. 5, 611A.612 (2006). This statutory scheme is, if not directly contravened, certainly undermined, by the district court’s order. See generally State v. Mix, 646 N.W.2d 247, 250 (Minn.App.2002) (“A court abuses its discretion when it acts ... in contravention of the law.”), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2002). Respondent’s obligation as modified will in all likelihood deprive other crime victims of the opportunity to be compensated for their financial losses because she will pay only a miniscule amount of the restitution ordered in her original sentence. We also note that important policy concerns are raised by allowing unfettered modification of sentence conditions based on plea agreements. The vast majority of *605criminal cases in Minnesota are resolved without trial. State v. Lussier, 695 N.W.2d 651, 655 (Minn.App.2005) (stating “approximately 97 percent of criminal proceedings in Minnesota are resolved without trial”), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005). As any criminal law practitioner knows, plea bargains are a substantial reason underlying this fact and constitute an invaluable tool for county attorneys and local prosecutors. But a county attorney or prosecutor who knows that the district court could simply accept the plea agreement and then subsequently alter the sentence imposed as part of the agreement has a disincentive to negotiate an agreement in the first place. The parties to a plea agreement need to be reasonably confident that the conditions that they negotiate are the ones that each side will receive. Unless there are some minimal limits on a district court’s discretion to subsequently alter sentence conditions premised on plea agreements, this will not be the case. We are not unsympathetic to the victims’ genuine desire that the remainder of respondent’s restitution obligation be discharged. The district court’s responsiveness to these concerns is certainly admirable, and if it were the only consideration, it would be difficult to argue that the district court acted improperly. But there are other factors that must be considered in evaluating the propriety of the ordered modification. Consideration of these factors leads us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the terms of respondent’s restitution that was part of a negotiated plea agreement when the state objected to the modification. DECISION Respondent’s restitution obligation of $400,000 was imposed as part of a sentence premised on a negotiated plea agreement with the state. The state opposed modification of the terms of this plea-based obligation. We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion in modifying respondent’s restitution to permit its discharge without full payment as required in the original sentence. Reversed.

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. · 2007 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of M.R.H. · 2006 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Wilkens · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Mason v. State · 2002 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Thole · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Latimer · 1999 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of J.A.D. · 1999 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Tenerelli · 1998 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Colsch · 1998 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Keehn · 1996 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of D.D.G. · 1995 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Dillon · 1995 1 citation

V. Restitution to Drug Task Force The trial court ordered Dillon to pay $3,175 to the Southeastern Minnesota Drug Task Force as restitution for money expended to purchase the cocaine. A victim of a crime has the right to receive restitution. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1992). The statute defines a "victim" for purposes of restitution as either a natural person or a corporation that incurs loss as a result of crime. Id. § 611A.01(b). The Southeastern Minnesota Drug Task Force is a police agency. The task force does not qualify either as a natural person or as a corporation for purposes of statutory restitution. The legislature must mandate any broader entitlement to restitution: [T]he word "restitution" connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss. If the legislature intended the term to be used more loosely, as a form of punitive damages, it should have used some other word or made its particular use of the word clearer. State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn. 1984). See also State v. Harwell, 515 N.W.2d 105, 110 (Minn.App.1994) (ruling that Missing Children's Fund is not a "victim" entitled to restitution), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 1994). We reverse the trial court's order for restitution to the drug task force.

State v. Maidi · 1994 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Dendy · 1994 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Anderson · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Pomeranke v. Williamson · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. O'BRIEN · 1990 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Larson v. Dunn · 1990 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Wolf · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jola · 1987 1 citation

In this case restitution would be made to an insurance company and/or the car dealership. Jola and Sopp argue that restitution cannot be imposed because restitution can only be ordered paid to persons. They rely on Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 which gives a crime victim the right to request restitution. The section is entitled “Victim’s Right to Request Restitution,” and only a “natural person” can request this type of relief. See Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b). It is clear that the purpose of the legislation is to provide a victim with economic recovery. A non-person is excluded presumably because “non-persons” such as insurance companies have adequate resources to obtain a civil judgment for economic losses. Chapter 611A deals with rights of victims to request restitution and has no effect on the court’s ability to order restitution to a company under Chapter 609.

State v. Jones · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Larson · 1986 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankr. D. Minnesota

Kerkinni v. Riehm · 2020 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.