Can restitution include time spent by victims in criminal proceedings? State v. Jamieson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about what types of victim time can be included in restitution orders in State v. Jamieson, 2021 UTApp 3. The case clarifies boundaries on compensable time under Utah’s Crime Victims Restitution Act and highlights the importance of effective advocacy at restitution hearings.

Background and Facts

Gary Jamieson, employed as chief engineer, downloaded over 1,400 of his CEO’s emails without authorization and disseminated them to federal agencies and media. After pleading guilty to computer crimes, the State sought $164,609.77 in restitution. The bulk of this request consisted of the CEO’s claimed 553 hours spent dealing with the aftermath, valued at $110,600. Company counsel indicated that approximately 75% of the time involved mitigating damages, while 25% involved “dealing with the criminal process in general,” including attending court hearings. The district court ordered complete restitution of $120,378.27 without separating time spent on criminal proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

The court considered two primary issues: whether the restitution order improperly included time spent by company employees participating in criminal proceedings, and whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the CEO’s unsupported 553-hour claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found plain error in including criminal proceeding time. Relying on State v. Brown, the court emphasized the “longstanding, well-settled rule” that forecloses recovery of costs incurred in litigation maintenance. Under Utah’s definition of “pecuniary damages,” victims can only recover damages recoverable in a civil action arising from the criminal activity. Time spent attending criminal hearings would not be recoverable in civil tort litigation. The court also found ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that competent counsel would have cross-examined the CEO about his unsupported 553-hour estimate, which comprised the majority of the restitution claim and lacked documentation.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that restitution cannot compensate victims for time spent participating in criminal proceedings, regardless of whether they appear voluntarily or by subpoena. Defense attorneys must adequately challenge unsupported victim time claims, particularly when they constitute substantial portions of restitution requests. The case emphasizes the importance of thorough cross-examination at restitution hearings, especially when victim time estimates lack documentation and form the basis for significant financial awards.