State of New Hampshire v. Bruce Moore

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the cost of a home security system installed after a burglary was not an "economic loss" compensable as restitution under RSA 651:62, III(a). The court concluded that the system was not sufficiently similar to the medical, dental, rehabilitation, and mental-health services enumerated in the statute and that reimbursing the expense would leave the homeowners with a new asset rather than restore a prior loss. The opinion reversed the restitution order; a dissent argued that the statute broadly encompasses reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of a criminal offense.

Holdings

1. The cost of a new security system installed after a burglary is not an economic loss under RSA 651:62, III(a) where the system does not replace a preexisting system and therefore leaves the victims with a new asset rather than restoring them to their pre-crime position.
2. The phrase 'reasonably needed products, services and accommodations' in RSA 651:62, III(a) is limited to items similar in nature to the enumerated medical, dental, rehabilitation, and other remedial treatment and care, including mental-health services. A security system is not sufficiently similar because it is an object, not individualized healthcare or remedial treatment.
3. The broad statutory purpose of increasing the number of restitution awards does not override the specific statutory language limiting restitution to compensable economic losses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the cost of a home security system installed by burglary victims after the offense constitutes an economic loss under RSA 651:62, III(a), and is compensable as restitution.
2. Whether the statutory phrase 'reasonably needed products, services and accommodations, including but not limited to' is limited by ejusdem generis to items similar in nature to the enumerated medical, dental, rehabilitation, and remedial-care expenses.
3. Whether the security-system expense was sufficiently causally connected to the burglary to qualify as a direct-result loss.

Disposition

reversed