Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considered whether a juvenile court could order restitution for a victim's counseling expenses when the underlying offense was not a sex offense. The court held that the more specific and later-enacted definition of restitution in RCW 13.40.020(22) limited counseling restitution to sex offenses. It reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's denial of restitution.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a juvenile court has statutory authority to order restitution for a victim's crime-related counseling expenses when the offense is not a sex offense.
- Whether the more specific and later-enacted statutory definition limiting counseling restitution to sex offenses controls over the broader provision stating that restitution may include counseling costs.
Holdings
- A juvenile court lacks statutory authority under the Juvenile Justice Act to order restitution for a victim's counseling costs when the underlying offense is not a sex offense.
- The court may not disregard or rewrite the statutory phrase limiting counseling restitution to sex offenses merely because the limitation may produce an undesirable result or appears inconsistent with broader restitution purposes.
Key quotations
“If restitution for counseling is to be available to victims of juvenile crimes that are not sex offenses, the legislature, not the courts, must delete this statutory language that says otherwise.” (at 324)
“Although we may wish that the legislature had not said what it did say, we cannot simply wish away the legislature's specific statement that restitution "shall be limited to ... costs of the victim's counseling reasonably related to the offense if the offense is a sex offense."” (at 324)
Factual background
J.P., age 14, was charged with and found guilty of fourth degree assault with sexual motivation, a gross misdemeanor. The State sought $560.74 in restitution for the victim's crime-related counseling expenses. The juvenile court denied restitution because the statutory definition limited counseling restitution to offenses classified as sex offenses, and J.P.'s offense did not qualify.
Procedural history
J.P. was found guilty of fourth degree assault with sexual motivation in juvenile court. The juvenile court denied the State's request for $560.74 in restitution for the victim's counseling expenses, concluding that the governing statutory definition limited counseling restitution to sex offenses. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered restitution, and the Washington Supreme Court granted J.P.'s petition for review.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals decision was reversed, and the juvenile trial court's order denying the State's restitution request was reinstated.