State v. Kristi L. Hurles

158 Idaho 569 (2015) · Supreme Court of the State of Idaho · May 21, 2015 · No. 42205

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed a restitution order imposed after Kristi L. Hurles pleaded guilty to grand theft from her employer. The court affirmed $10,000 in restitution for lottery pull-tab thefts, reversed restitution for certain attorney fees, and vacated the remaining restitution for ATM losses and related professional fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the restitution calculation and applicable fees.

Holdings

  1. The district court erred by basing the $145,440 ATM restitution award primarily on a spreadsheet rather than on the department reports that the parties had agreed would serve as the basis for calculating restitution. That portion of the award was vacated and remanded for identification of the agreed reports and quantification of restitution under those reports.
  2. The district court properly ordered $10,000 in restitution for the lottery pull-tab thefts, even though those thefts were not included in the count to which Hurles pleaded guilty, because Hurles agreed to pay that restitution.
  3. Attorney fees incurred in third-party lawsuits against Warr, Warr's accounting firm, and U.S. Bank, and fees incurred to intervene in Hurles' bankruptcy proceeding, were not recoverable as restitution because they were not direct economic losses necessary to recover the losses caused by Hurles' thefts.
  4. Attorney fees incurred to investigate and calculate the victim's embezzlement losses and prepare for restitution proceedings may be recoverable as restitution, but the remaining attorney-fee award was vacated because the record did not establish that the fees and spreadsheet-related work were connected to the department reports specified in the restitution agreement.
  5. The Court did not decide whether the Morrisons waived the accountant-client privilege. The issue could be addressed by the district court if it arose again on remand.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court's restitution calculation was supported by substantial and competent evidence.
  2. Whether the Morrisons implicitly waived the accountant-client privilege.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by including the Morrisons' attorney fees in the restitution award.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • State v. Schall, 157 Idaho 488, 491, 337 P.3d 647, 650 (2014)(followed)
  • State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599, 602, 249 P.3d 398, 401 (2011)(limited)
  • State v. Lombard, 149 Idaho 819, 822, 242 P.3d 189, 192 (Ct. App. 2010)(followed)
  • State v. Nienburg, 153 Idaho 491, 495-96, 283 P.3d 808, 812-13 (Ct. App. 2012)(followed)
  • State v. Shafer, 144 Idaho 370, 373-75, 161 P.3d 689, 692-94 (Ct. App. 2007)(followed)
  • State v. Kellis, 129 Idaho 730, 733-34, 932 P.2d 358, 361-62 (Ct. App. 1997)(followed)
  • Dunlap v. State, 141 Idaho 50, 63, 106 P.3d 376, 389 (2004)(followed)
  • State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 167-68, 139 P.3d 767, 769-70 (Ct. App. 2006)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Idaho Supreme Court Of The State