Does Utah's Restitution Act allow comparative fault apportionment between criminal codefendants? State v. Debrok Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in State v. Debrok definitively answered whether criminal restitution can be apportioned between codefendants based on comparative fault principles. The Court held that Utah’s Crime Victims Restitution Act precludes such apportionment and requires joint and several liability when multiple defendants proximately cause the same damages.

Background and Facts

Debrok and his codefendant executed a receipt scheme against Walmart, purchasing items and then immediately returning to steal identical merchandise using the receipt as “proof” of purchase. They would then return the stolen items to different Walmart locations for cash or gift cards. After being caught, Debrok pled guilty to two third-degree felonies for unauthorized possession of property. The parties agreed that Walmart sustained $10,061.32 in damages. At sentencing, Debrok requested that the court split the restitution equally between him and his codefendant based on comparative fault principles, arguing they were equally responsible for the scheme.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the Restitution Act permits courts to apportion damages between criminal codefendants using comparative fault principles, or whether each defendant must be held jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages they proximately caused. The district court had relied on State v. McBride to reject apportionment, though that precedent had been undermined by subsequent changes in Utah law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court first addressed the status of McBride, noting that while Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc. had abrogated its underlying premise by allowing comparative fault in intentional torts, the 2021 amendments to the Restitution Act provided a clearer answer. The Court interpreted the Act’s requirement that defendants pay “the entire amount of pecuniary damages that are proximately caused to each victim by the criminal conduct of the defendant” as precluding comparative fault apportionment. The Court emphasized that “entire amount” means the whole or complete amount, and allowing apportionment would contradict this statutory language. The Court also noted that joint and several liability serves the legislature’s goal of “fully compensating” crime victims by placing insolvency risk on codefendants rather than victims.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s Restitution Act operates differently from civil liability frameworks. Practitioners should understand that comparative fault principles from the Liability Reform Act do not apply to criminal restitution orders. When representing victims, this ruling ensures full compensation without the risk that one defendant’s insolvency will reduce recovery. For defense counsel, the decision eliminates arguments for reduced restitution based on codefendant fault, though it preserves the possibility of negotiating apportionment through plea agreements under section 205(1)(a)(i).