Brad Singleton v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that an insurance company may qualify as a victim and aggrieved party eligible to receive restitution under Arkansas law for monetary expenses incurred as an indirect result of a defendant’s crime. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that State Farm’s subrogation remedy barred restitution and held that his ability-to-pay argument was not preserved for appeal. The court modified the restitution award to correct a three-cent mathematical error and otherwise affirmed.

Holdings

1. An insurance company that incurs monetary expense as an indirect result of a defendant's offense by compensating the insured for the loss qualifies as a victim eligible for restitution.
2. The terms aggrieved party and victim are used interchangeably in section 5-4-303, so State Farm qualified as an aggrieved party eligible for restitution.
3. The appellate court would not consider Singleton's argument that the circuit court failed to determine his ability to pay because he did not raise that argument below.
4. The restitution award to State Farm was modified from $15,260.72 to $15,260.69 to correct the circuit court's three-cent mathematical error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an insurance company that pays an insured's loss caused by a criminal offense qualifies as a victim under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-205.
2. Whether an insurance company qualifies as an aggrieved party under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-303.
3. Whether Singleton's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning his ability to pay restitution was preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether the restitution award contained a correctable mathematical error.

Disposition

affirmed