Utah Court of Appeals
Can police negligence supersede criminal restitution liability? State v. McBride Explained
Summary
McBride was caught driving a stolen Camaro and pleaded guilty to unlawful control. Police impounded the vehicle but mistranscribed the VIN, preventing owner notification, and the car was sold. The trial court ordered McBride to pay $600 restitution to the original owner.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. McBride, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether police negligence during vehicle impoundment could relieve a criminal defendant of restitution liability. The decision clarifies important principles about causation and intervening acts in criminal restitution cases.
Background and Facts
McBride was caught driving a stolen 1978 Chevrolet Camaro and pleaded guilty to unlawful control of a motor vehicle. When police impounded the vehicle, they mistranscribed the vehicle identification number, preventing proper notification to the owner Martinez. Unable to locate the owner, the impound lot sold the car. The trial court ordered McBride to pay $600 restitution representing the unpaid balance on Martinez’s purchase contract.
Key Legal Issues
McBride challenged the restitution order on two grounds: (1) insufficient evidence to support the award, and (2) the police department’s intervening negligence in transcribing the VIN superseded his liability. He also argued that any restitution should be reduced under comparative negligence principles to account for police fault.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied a modified “but for” test for causation in restitution cases. Although the police negligence contributed to Martinez’s loss, the court found it was not so unforeseeable as to supersede McBride’s liability. Critically, but for McBride’s criminal act that resulted in impoundment, Martinez’s loss would never have occurred. The court also rejected the comparative negligence argument, holding that comparative negligence does not apply to intentional torts like conversion, which McBride’s crime constituted.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that intervening negligence by third parties, including law enforcement, rarely supersedes criminal restitution liability. Courts will examine whether the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable and apply causation principles that favor victims. Defense attorneys should focus on breaking the causal chain entirely rather than seeking to apportion fault, as comparative negligence principles do not apply to intentional criminal acts that constitute conversion.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. McBride
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 960324-CA
Date Decided
June 26, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Police negligence in transcribing a vehicle identification number during impoundment does not supersede a defendant’s liability for criminal restitution when the loss would not have occurred but for the defendant’s criminal act.
Standard of Review
Clear weight of evidence standard for sufficiency challenges; correctness for statutory interpretation questions
Practice Tip
In restitution hearings, argue causation carefully—courts apply a modified ‘but for’ test and generally will not find police negligence superseding if it was reasonably foreseeable.
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.