State v. Shannon, 155 N.H. 135

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed a restitution order imposed after Michael Shannon pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property. The court held that, once the State established the defendant's responsibility for the victim's loss, the defendant bore the burden of proving that a Massachusetts restitution order had already fully compensated the victim. The court modified the restitution amount from $8,475 to $8,445 and affirmed the order as modified.

Holdings

1. When the State proves that the defendant is responsible for the victim's loss, RSA 651:61-a, I creates a presumption that the defendant will compensate the victim. The defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by proving that prior restitution fully compensated the victim for the same injury.
2. The trial court's finding that Shannon failed to prove that the Massachusetts restitution order fully compensated the victim was supported by the record and was not clearly erroneous.
3. The restitution order had to be modified from $8,475 to $8,445, the amount established for the unrecovered New Hampshire jewelry.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant or the State bore the burden of proving whether the Massachusetts restitution order had already fully compensated the victim for the same injury.
2. Whether the trial court's finding that the defendant had not established prior full compensation was unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous.
3. Whether the restitution amount should be corrected from $8,475 to the undisputed amount of $8,445.

Disposition

other