Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court holds that Kansas criminal restitution statutes do not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi, but that the statutory scheme violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights because it permits judges to determine damages that become civil judgments without a jury. The court remedies the constitutional defect by severing provisions that make restitution orders civil judgments while preserving criminal restitution as a judicial sanction. The court affirms the Court of Appeals and the district court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Kansas criminal restitution statutes violate the Sixth Amendment by allowing a judge, rather than a jury, to determine facts supporting the restitution amount.
- Whether Kansas criminal restitution statutes violate section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights by allowing a judge to determine loss or damages that become enforceable as a civil judgment.
- Whether the unconstitutional portions of the Kansas restitution scheme could be severed while leaving the remainder of the scheme operative.
Holdings
- The current Kansas criminal restitution statutes do not trigger Sixth Amendment protections under Apprendi and its progeny.
- The Kansas restitution scheme, insofar as it allowed a judge to determine damages or loss and converted that determination into a civil judgment, violated section 5's jury-trial guarantee.
- The unconstitutional portions of the Kansas restitution statutes could be severed, leaving the remainder of the restitution scheme intact.
- Restitution may continue to be imposed by a judge as part of a sentence or as a condition of probation, but a defendant will not face a civil judgment for restitution unless the amount is separately obtained through a civil cause of action.
Key quotations
“By allowing the judge to determine the legal damages proximately caused by the crime, rather than a jury, and then converting that determination into a civil judgment for the victim, the statutory scheme bypasses the traditional function of the jury to determine civil damages, thereby implicating section 5.” (at 14-15)
“If we use precision to sever the problematic statutory language from the rest of the Kansas criminal restitution statutes and invalidate only those portions making orders of restitution civil judgments, it preserves the societal goals advanced by a judicial sanction of restitution within the context of a criminal case without infringing on a defendant's—or a victim's—right to a jury trial in a civil setting.” (at 16-17)
“With today's holding, restitution may still be imposed by a judge either as part of the sentence—as contemplated by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6604(b)—or as a condition of probation—as contemplated by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6607(c)(2). However, a criminal defendant will not be faced with a civil judgment for restitution unless it has been obtained separately through a civil cause of action.” (at 18)
Factual background
Robison struck two officers at the Lyon County Jail, causing Corporal Bobby Cutright to suffer an eye injury and an arm bite. Cutright received medical treatment, and Lyon County's workers compensation insurance carrier paid $2,648.56 in medical expenses. After Robison pleaded no contest to one battery charge, the district court ordered him to pay that amount in restitution; at the restitution hearing, he did not dispute the amount or its causal connection to the attack, but argued that the insurer was not entitled to restitution.
Procedural history
Robison pleaded no contest to one count of battery of a law enforcement officer. The district court sentenced him to imprisonment and post-release supervision and later ordered him to pay $2,648.56 in restitution for medical expenses paid by a workers compensation insurer. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting his constitutional challenges and his challenge to restitution for the insurer. The Kansas Supreme Court granted review only of the Kansas constitutional and Sixth Amendment jury-trial issues, granted Robison's motion to supplement oral argument, and affirmed both lower-court judgments.