State v. Futrell

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court held that restitution may be ordered for damages proximately caused by the crime of conviction under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6607(c)(2). Because the district court did not explain the causation standard it applied and the record lacked facts relevant to causation, the court vacated the restitution order for $680 in losses associated with the February 20 incident and remanded for a new hearing. The court affirmed the uncontested restitution for the damaged screen door and cell phone and affirmed vacatur of restitution for losses associated with the January 31 incident.

Holdings

1. A district court may order a defendant to pay restitution for any damages proximately caused by the crime of conviction, including damages associated with conduct corresponding to a theft if the required proximate causal connection is established.
2. When the district court's reasoning is unclear and the record is factually insufficient to apply the governing restitution standard, the proper remedy is to vacate the affected restitution award and remand for a new restitution hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether restitution for money allegedly taken from Platt's home and vehicle on February 20 could be ordered under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6607(c)(2) based on damages proximately caused by Futrell's crime of conviction.
2. Whether the case should be remanded for a new restitution hearing when the district court did not explain the causation standard it used and the record did not establish where the vehicle was located.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded