Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a restitution order entered after Toby Charbonneau pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor possession of stolen property. The court held that restitution must directly relate to losses caused by the criminal conduct underlying the conviction and cannot be based on an uncharged burglary. Because the recovered property had been returned to the victims, the court reversed and vacated the $35,791 restitution order.
Questions Presented
- Whether restitution must relate directly to damage caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant was convicted.
- Whether the restitution order could include the value of property recovered and returned to the victims.
- Whether the trial court was required to make findings concerning the defendant's ability to pay restitution.
Holdings
- A restitution order must relate directly to the damage caused by the criminal conduct for which the defendant was convicted. A conviction for possession of stolen property does not support restitution for losses attributed to a separate, uncharged burglary merely because the trial court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the burglary.
- Property recovered from defendant and returned to the victims did not constitute material loss under the restitution statute, so it could not support a restitution award.
Key quotations
“To support a restitution award, the State must demonstrate “causation between the defendant’s criminal act and the victim’s loss.”” (¶ 10)
“Possession of stolen property and burglary are entirely separate crimes.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
The victims reported a burglary and substantial property losses, some of which were insured. Police later recovered fifteen items from Charbonneau's residence that the victims identified as stolen, and the items were returned. Charbonneau pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property, but the plea proceedings did not identify specific items beyond the recovered property or establish that he committed the burglary. The trial court nevertheless attributed the victims' entire uninsured burglary loss to Charbonneau and ordered $35,791 in restitution.
Procedural history
Charbonneau pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor possession of stolen property. After a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered him to pay $35,791 for the victims' uninsured losses arising from a burglary. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and vacated the restitution order because the losses were not directly linked to the criminal conduct covered by defendant's convictions.
Remand instructions
The restitution order is vacated. No further instructions are stated.