Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the State may appeal juvenile restitution orders under RCW 13.04.033(1), which permits an appeal by any aggrieved person. It further held that restitution is mandatory under RCW 13.40.190 and that crime victims’ insurers qualify as persons and victims entitled to restitution for proven losses. The court affirmed and remanded for entry of restitution orders consistent with its opinion.
Holdings
- RCW 13.04.033(1), which permits any person aggrieved by a final juvenile-court order to appeal, authorizes the State to appeal an erroneous juvenile restitution order.
- Crime victims' insurers are persons and victims entitled to restitution for covered losses under RCW 13.40.190(1), subject to sufficient proof of loss.
Questions Presented
- Whether the State may appeal juvenile restitution orders under RCW 13.04.033(1).
- Whether crime victims' insurers are persons and victims entitled to restitution under RCW 13.40.190(1) and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- State v. A.M.R., 108 Wash. App. 9, 14, 27 P.3d 678 (2001)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Schellong, 94 Wash. 2d 314, 317, 616 P.2d 1233 (1980)(followed)
- State v. Pacheco, 125 Wash. 2d 150, 154, 882 P.2d 183 (1994)(followed)
- In re Brazier Forest Prods., Inc., 106 Wash. 2d 588, 595, 724 P.2d 970 (1986)(followed)
- Sheets v. Benevolent & Prot. Order of Keglers, 34 Wash. 2d 851, 854-55, 210 P.2d 690 (1949)(followed)
- State v. Williams, 112 Wash. App. 171, 48 P.3d 354 (2002)(distinguished)
- State v. Mail, 121 Wash. 2d 707, 712, 854 P.2d 1042 (1993)(distinguished)
- State v. Bernhard, 108 Wash. 2d 527, 530, 741 P.2d 1 (1987)(distinguished)
- State v. Shove, 113 Wash. 2d 83, 85, 776 P.2d 132 (1989)(followed)
- State v. Johnson, 24 Wash. 75, 77, 63 P. 1124 (1901)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…