 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blanton11/5/1992
is not an "immediate family member" under A.R.S. § 13-603 C and that the attorney's fees are not an economic loss as defined in A.R.S. § 13-105(11).
Appellant's argument overlooks a critical fact. The trial court did not order appellant to pay the attorney's fees. Rather, the court ordered appellant to pay the amount American Family paid to Thomas' heirs to settle the lawsuit. What the children chose to do with the settlement they received is not relevant to determining restitution.
The trial court's order falls within the limits of the statutes authorizing restitution and is consistent with the evidence offered by American Family to substantiate its claim. See Stotts, 144 Ariz. at 87, 695 P.2d at 1125. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding restitution to American Family.
B.
Appellant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding restitution to Thomas' parents for a headstone, flowers, chapel music, minister's honorarium, and chapel fee. Appellant concedes liability for basic burial expenses, but argues that the expenses listed above result from the bereavement and religious practices of Thomas' survivors and therefore are more like consequential damages than actual "economic loss."
Whether specific expenses are economic losses depends upon whether a causal connection exists between the criminal conduct and the claimed loss. Morris, 173 Ariz. at 18, 839 P.2d at 438. Arizona's restitution statutes direct the court to utilize a "but for" or a "direct result" analysis when ordering restitution. Id. at 17, 839 P.2d at 437 (citing A.R.S. § 13-105(11)).
In this case, the funeral expenses outlined above resulted directly from appellant's criminal act; but for appellant's act of causing Thomas' death, these expenses would not have occurred. The trial court, which carefully reviewed each claimed item of economic loss, did not abuse its discretion in finding that these expenses are economic losses within the meaning of the statute. See State v. Fancher, 169 Ariz. 266, 268, 818 P.2d 251, 253 (App.1991).
III.
We have reviewed the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4035 and have found none. We affirm the judgment, sentence and restitution order.
Judges Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|