Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts order restitution for conduct beyond the defendant's conviction? State v. Trujillo Explained
Summary
Trujillo pled guilty to failure to comply with an officer’s signal to stop but was ordered to pay $2,500 restitution for impound fees on a vehicle he was driving. The trial court ordered restitution despite no evidence linking Trujillo’s failure to stop to the impound fees and despite Trujillo’s denial of theft or abandonment of the vehicle.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the limits of restitution orders in criminal cases in State v. Trujillo, reversing a trial court’s order requiring a defendant to pay $2,500 for impound fees related to a vehicle involved in his failure to stop for police.
Background and Facts
Joseph Trujillo pled guilty to failure to comply with an officer’s signal to stop, a third-degree felony. The presentence investigation report specifically stated there were “no victims or restitution owed.” However, at sentencing, the State requested $2,500 in restitution to compensate the owner of the vehicle Trujillo was driving, claiming the car was later abandoned and impounded. Trujillo maintained he had borrowed the vehicle from his niece in good faith and was not convicted of theft or abandonment.
Key Legal Issues
The court examined whether restitution could be ordered when: (1) the defendant was not convicted of the conduct allegedly causing the damages, and (2) the State failed to prove a causal nexus between the defendant’s admitted criminal activity and the claimed pecuniary damages.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the rule that restitution is only warranted when a defendant is convicted of criminal activity resulting in pecuniary damages. Under Utah Code Section 77-38a-102(2), criminal activity includes only offenses for which the defendant is convicted or other criminal conduct for which the defendant admits responsibility. The court emphasized that Utah employs a “modified ‘but for’ test” requiring both that damages would not have occurred but for the defendant’s convicted conduct and that the causal nexus is not too attenuated.
The court found no evidence connecting Trujillo’s failure to stop with the later impound fees, noting that impoundment damages are “qualitatively different” from typical police chase damages. The State’s theory required impermissible inferences about Trujillo’s conduct beyond his admitted offense.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that restitution orders must be grounded in the defendant’s actual convictions or admissions, not prosecutorial theories about related conduct. The presentence investigation report can serve as crucial evidence against unsupported restitution claims, particularly when it affirmatively states no restitution is owed.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Trujillo
Citation
2017 UT App 151
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150779-CA
Date Decided
August 17, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution for damages arising from criminal conduct for which he was not convicted or to which he did not admit responsibility, and the State must prove a causal nexus between the defendant’s admitted criminal activity and the claimed pecuniary damages.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law involving statutory interpretation; abuse of discretion for restitution orders generally
Practice Tip
When opposing restitution requests, examine the presentence investigation report carefully—if it states no victims or restitution are owed, use that as strong evidence against later restitution claims.
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.