Can a civil settlement agreement satisfy a criminal restitution judgment? Diderickson v. State of Utah Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Diderickson v. State of Utah addresses a critical issue for criminal defense practitioners: whether defendants can use pre-conviction civil settlement agreements to avoid or reduce criminal restitution orders.

Background and Facts

Defendants Diderickson and Bruun were convicted of twelve counts of theft related to misusing funds from a real estate development project with victims Kerry and Bobbie Posey. Before criminal charges were filed, the parties had entered into a civil settlement agreement where defendants returned property to the Poseys and paid $174,000, while the Poseys released all claims against defendants. The district court later ordered restitution of $189,574.33 based on the amount of the stolen checks, rejecting defendants’ argument that the settlement agreement should bar or offset restitution.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether a pre-conviction settlement agreement can satisfy a restitution judgment under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 58B, and (2) whether the restitution amount should have been reduced based on the settlement agreement’s compensation to victims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that defendants failed to provide “satisfactory proof” under Rule 58B(b) that their settlement agreement satisfied the restitution judgment. The court emphasized that the district court had already considered and rejected defendants’ settlement agreement arguments when setting the original restitution amount. The court noted that while the Crime Victims Restitution Act gives district courts discretion to consider settlement agreements, it does not mandate automatic offsets for pre-conviction settlements.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that criminal defendants cannot simply invoke pre-conviction settlement agreements to avoid restitution obligations. Practitioners must present concrete evidence that settlements actually compensated victims for their losses—speculative property valuations will not suffice. The ruling also reinforces that restitution serves dual purposes: victim compensation and defendant rehabilitation/deterrence, which cannot be thwarted by private settlement agreements that inadequately compensate victims.