Does lost income restitution require bodily injury to the victim? State v. Wadsworth Explained

In State v. Wadsworth, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about restitution awards under the Crime Victims Restitution Act: whether lost income restitution requires bodily injury to the victim.

Background and Facts

Scott Wadsworth was convicted of sex crimes against a victim who suffered depression requiring counseling, which impacted her ability to work. The State sought restitution for the victim’s counseling costs and $12,934 in lost income. Crucially, the State did not allege that Wadsworth’s crimes caused bodily injury to the victim—only psychological harm leading to depression.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting Utah Code section 77-38a-302(5)(b)(iv), which allows courts to consider “the income lost by the victim as a result of the offense if the offense resulted in bodily injury to a victim.” The question was whether this conditional “if” clause creates an exclusive limitation or merely provides an exemplary factor.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the “if” clause establishes an exclusive condition for lost income restitution. Applying the expressio unius canon, the Court reasoned that expressing one limitation excludes others. The conditional language means exactly what it says—lost income restitution is only available “if the offense resulted in bodily injury to a victim.”

Practice Implications

This decision requires prosecutors to carefully plead and prove bodily injury when seeking lost income restitution. Psychological harm, depression, or other mental health impacts alone are insufficient. The ruling clarifies that while the restitution statute’s enumerated factors are exemplary rather than exhaustive, specific conditions within those factors remain binding limitations.