People v. Broussard9/2/1993
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
No. S024399
1993.CA.42500 ; 856 P.2d 1134; 5 Cal. 4th 1067; 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 278
Decided: September 2, 1993.
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
MARC EDWARD BROUSSARD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Superior Court of Mendocino County, Nos. 10158, 10701 and 10702, James W. Luther, Judge.
Jim Fahey, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama and Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorneys General, Mark S. Howell, Aileen Bunney and Sharon Rosen Leib, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion by Kennard, J., with Lucas, C. J., Arabian, Baxter and George, JJ., Concurring. Separate Dissenting opinion by Panelli, J., with Mosk, J., Concurring.
Kennard
In 1982, California voters by initiative added a provision to the state Constitution establishing a new constitutional right: the right of every crime victim to obtain restitution from the person committing the crime for all losses suffered as a result of the criminal act. (Cal. Const., art.
I, § 28, subd. (b).) The constitutional provision directed the Legislature to enact laws empowering trial courts to make restitution orders when sentencing convicted criminals. (Ibid.)
We granted review in this case to determine whether the Legislature has complied with this constitutional obligation to enact implementing legislation. Defendant Marc Edward Broussard, whose sentence for the crimes of theft and receiving stolen property directs him to pay restitution to the victims of these crimes, contends that the legislation passed to implement the constitutional right of restitution did not fully implement that right. He argues, in brief, that under existing law a defendant convicted of a crime and denied probation may be ordered to pay restitution only when the criminal act caused physical injury to the crime victim. No restitution order is permitted, defendant maintains, when the loss to the crime victim is purely economic.
We reject defendant's contention. The legislation implementing the constitutional right of restitution, interpreted reasonably in light of its evident purpose, authorizes trial courts to order criminals to compensate all crime victims, whether their loss results from a physical injury or from the theft or destruction of their property.
FACTS
In February 1991, defendant, who was facing criminal charges in at least four separate cases, entered into a plea bargain. He pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, former subd. 1) and pleaded no contest to one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1). In return, all of the remaining charges were dismissed. On March 28, 1991, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve two years and eight months in prison, and ordered him to pay restitution totaling $5,545 to the victims of the three crimes of which he had been convicted. None of these crimes involved physical injury to the victim.
Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court lacked the power to order him to pay restitution to the victims. He argued that under the controlling statute, Government Code section 13967, subdivision (c), the trial court lacked the power to order him to pay restitution to the victims beca
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|