State v. Kalal

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana considered whether a victim seeking criminal restitution had a duty to mitigate lost-income damages by renting a replacement tractor. The court held that the civil-law reasonableness standard applies to mitigation in criminal restitution proceedings and affirmed the $15,960 restitution award because renting and transporting a tractor was impracticable under the circumstances.

Holdings

1. The civil-law standard for mitigation of damages applies to criminal restitution: a victim is expected to do what a reasonable and prudent person would do if capable under the circumstances, but need not take action that is unreasonable or impracticable.
2. The District Court did not clearly err in awarding $15,960 in lost-income restitution based on the impracticability and expense of renting and transporting a replacement tractor.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs a victim's duty to mitigate pecuniary loss when criminal restitution is based on damages recoverable in a civil action?
2. Whether the District Court clearly erred by awarding $15,960 in lost-income restitution without requiring the victim to rent a replacement tractor.

Disposition

affirmed