Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992)

Cases | Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992) | 2018

The defendant-mother was convicted on two counts of interference with custody of children. The trial court imposed a sentence, directing the defendant to pay restitution to the children’s father for expenses he incurred in locating the children. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the restitution order for the father’s costs of an investigator and legal fees to track down the children after the defendant had taken them from his custody. The court, however, remanded the case to see if those costs were sustainable as a condition of probation, to determine what loss or damage had been caused, and examine what amount the defendant could afford to pay and how it should be paid, since that was not of record. The court noted that 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106 permits restitution only for losses that are a direct result of the crime. However, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(8) allows a sentencing court the broader discretion to impose restitution as a condition of parole. The court concluded that the more liberal language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(c)(8) could encompass all the types of claims presented by the father, as long as the trial court was satisfied that restitution was being ordered so that the defendant would understand the cruelty of her conduct, be deterred from repeating the conduct, be encouraged to live in a responsible manner, and be able to pay the costs. Restitution may be imposed only for those crimes to property or person where the victim suffered a loss that flows from conduct that forms the basis of the crime for which the defendant is held criminally accountable.