State of South Dakota v. Jerrold Ray Martin

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota considers whether a restitution order following a guilty plea for intentional damage to property properly calculated the value of destroyed personal property. The court holds that the civil measure of damages applies, and that replacement cost may be considered for property with peculiar value but cannot be used without considering depreciation or other relevant factors. The restitution order is reversed and remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reconsideration of the amount.

Holdings

1. The civil measure of damages applies to criminal restitution because SDCL 23A-28-2(3) defines pecuniary damages by reference to damages recoverable in a civil action arising from the same facts or event.
2. Replacement cost may be an appropriate measure of restitution for personal property with peculiar value to the owner or lacking a readily ascertainable secondhand market, but replacement cost may not be used without considering depreciation or other relevant valuation factors.
3. A trial court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting a restitution order, particularly when the valuation evidence is disputed.

Questions Presented

1. What measure of damages governs restitution for destroyed personal property under South Dakota's restitution statutes?
2. May a trial court use replacement value without considering depreciation, fair market value, or other relevant valuation factors?
3. Did the trial court err by rejecting the civil measure of damages incorporated into the restitution statutes and by failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law?

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded