Utah Court of Appeals
Must the State prove causation for restitution even when a defendant agrees to pay? State v. Becker Explained
Summary
Becker pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated assault after striking a victim with a shovel and agreed to pay restitution as part of a plea in abeyance. The State sought $663.01 in restitution for eyeglasses and an eye exam based only on the victim’s handwritten note and a payment notification from the Utah Office for Victims of Crimes, without providing evidence connecting the eyeglass damage to Becker’s assault.
Analysis
In State v. Becker, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified that the State must prove proximate cause between a defendant’s criminal conduct and alleged damages to support a restitution order, even when the defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement.
Background and Facts
Becker struck a victim with a shovel during an altercation over unleashed dogs, causing injuries to the victim’s neck, head, and hand. Becker pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated assault and agreed to pay restitution as part of a plea in abeyance. The State sought $663.01 in restitution for eyeglasses and an eye exam, supported only by the victim’s handwritten note and a payment notification from the Utah Office for Victims of Crimes. No evidence connected the claimed eyeglass damage to Becker’s assault, and police reports made no mention of damaged eyeglasses.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether the State must prove causation between criminal conduct and claimed damages when a defendant agrees to pay restitution, and what standard applies to establish that causal connection.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the proximate cause test established by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Ogden, requiring that the defendant’s conduct be “that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produced the injury.” The court emphasized that even when the Utah Office for Victims of Crimes pays reparations, the State must still satisfy the proximate cause test. Here, the victim’s bare itemized list and the absence of any evidence connecting eyeglass damage to the assault failed to meet this burden.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that restitution may only be awarded “where liability is clear as a matter of law and where the commission of the crime clearly establishes causality of the injury or damages.” Practitioners should demand specific evidence linking each claimed expense to the defendant’s conduct, as victim compensation payments and handwritten expense lists alone are insufficient to establish the required causal nexus.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Becker
Citation
2018 UT App 81
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20131151-CA
Date Decided
May 3, 2018
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The State must prove proximate cause between a defendant’s criminal conduct and a victim’s alleged damages to support a restitution order, even when the defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for restitution orders
Practice Tip
When challenging restitution orders, demand that the State provide specific evidence connecting the defendant’s criminal conduct to each claimed expense, as bare itemized lists or victim compensation payments alone are insufficient to establish causation.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.