Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts include lost paid time off in criminal restitution orders? State v. Tuyisenge Explained

2026 UT App 61
No. 20250435-CA
April 16, 2026
Affirmed

Summary

Eric Tuyisenge pled guilty to rape and was ordered to pay restitution for the victim’s lost wages, including compensation for paid time off she used to cover work missed due to the assault. Tuyisenge argued that the victim suffered no pecuniary loss because she was paid through her PTO and that the value of the PTO was speculative.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Eric Tuyisenge pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to pay restitution to the victim for time she missed from work as a result of the assault. The victim had used her accrued paid time off (PTO) to compensate for the missed work days. Tuyisenge challenged the district court’s restitution order, arguing that the victim suffered no pecuniary loss because she was paid through her PTO, and that the value of the PTO was speculative since there was no evidence she planned to use it later.

Key Legal Issues

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the Crime Victims Restitution Act allows courts to include lost PTO as a pecuniary loss in restitution orders. Under Utah Code § 77-38b-205(1)(a), restitution must include “the entire amount of pecuniary damages that are proximately caused to each victim by the criminal conduct of the defendant.” The statute defines pecuniary damages as “all demonstrable economic injury, losses, and expenses regardless of whether the economic injury, losses, and expenses have yet been incurred.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s restitution order. The court reasoned that it could make a reasonable inference that the victim would have used her PTO at a later date had she not needed it to cover work missed due to Tuyisenge’s criminal conduct. The court found that the loss of PTO constitutes an economic injury because PTO has easily calculable economic value and forms part of an employee’s benefits package. The court cited persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, including People v. Perez and In re Ryan A., which held that lost PTO falls within the scope of lost wages for restitution purposes.

Practice Implications

This decision expands the scope of recoverable damages under Utah’s restitution statutes. Practitioners should document all employee benefits used by victims to cover time missed due to criminal conduct, including PTO, sick leave, and vacation time. Defense attorneys should be prepared to address the economic value of such benefits in plea negotiations and sentencing hearings, while prosecutors should gather evidence of the monetary value of any benefits the victim expended.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Tuyisenge

Citation

2026 UT App 61

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20250435-CA

Date Decided

April 16, 2026

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

The loss of paid time off (PTO) used to compensate for work missed due to criminal conduct constitutes a pecuniary loss that can be included in a restitution order under the Crime Victims Restitution Act.

Standard of Review

Not specified in the opinion

Practice Tip

When calculating restitution for lost wages, include the value of any paid time off or other employee benefits the victim used to cover missed work, as these constitute demonstrable economic injuries under Utah’s Crime Victims Restitution Act.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Osborne v. Osborne

    May 12, 2011

    A Utah district court properly enforced a domesticated foreign divorce decree by awarding a divorced spouse her portion of railroad retirement benefits as specified in the original decree.
    • Child Support and Alimony
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Corona-Leyva v. Hartman

    April 7, 2022

    District courts must apply an individualized objective standard when determining whether a stalker’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances to fear for safety, not focus on the petitioner’s subjective fears.
    • Protective Orders
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
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.