People v. Nonaka

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that a civil settlement and release between a crime victim and a defendant or the defendant’s insurer does not discharge the defendant’s independent constitutional obligation to pay restitution in the criminal case. Attorney fees and costs incurred by the victim in obtaining the civil settlement may constitute compensable economic losses, subject to any required offset for settlement payments covering the same losses. The court reversed the denial of restitution and remanded for entry of a consistent restitution order.

Holdings

1. A civil settlement and release between a victim and the defendant's insurer does not discharge the defendant's independent constitutional obligation to pay victim restitution in the criminal case. Any purported waiver of the People's constitutional right to restitution in the civil action is not enforceable against the People in the criminal case.
2. Actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred by a victim to obtain compensation for injuries caused by the defendant's criminal conduct may be included in a criminal restitution order.
3. Respondent failed to meet his burden to disprove the claimed attorney fees and costs or to establish that an offset was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a civil settlement and release between a crime victim and the defendant or the defendant's insurer discharges the defendant's independent constitutional obligation to pay victim restitution in the criminal case.
2. Whether attorney fees and costs paid by a victim in obtaining a civil settlement are compensable economic losses for purposes of criminal restitution.
3. Whether the defendant met his burden to disprove the reasonableness of the claimed attorney fees or establish that an offset was required.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded