Commonwealth v. Kline, 695 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)

Cases | Commonwealth v. Kline, 695 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to simple assault, and was ordered to pay $330 in restitution to the victim’s mother, and $714.50 in restitution to the victim’s insurer. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing court violated the ex post facto clause of the U. S. Constitution by imposing restitution under the revisions to 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, which allow an award of restitution in favor of an insurance company. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the restitution award, finding that restitution is not punishment within the meaning of the ex post facto clause. After the defendant assaulted the victim, the legislature expanded the definition of victim to include any insurance company that compensated a victim for loss under an insurance contract. The amendment increased the allowable amount of restitution awarded in this case. The court concluded that, while restitution is acknowledged to have a deterrent and penal effect, its primary purpose is remedial, and not punitive. The court noted that the primary purposes of restitution are compensating the victim for losses resulting from the crime, and rehabilitating the defendant. Since restitution is not punishment under the ex post facto clause, the sentence was appropriate.