State v. Gill, 681 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2004)

Cases | State v. Gill, 681 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2004) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to theft of property arising from theft from his employer and was ordered to make restitution of $4,120. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the restitution order; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to make a finding that he had the financial ability to pay the amount. The supreme court held that: (1) there was sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence to support the restitution order. Hidden video surveillance cameras revealed the defendant turning off the regular surveillance system, accessing a safe, and taking money from drop boxes. Further, no unusual discrepancies were discovered after termination of the defendant’s employment; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $4120. Though the defendant had the burden to raise and prove an inability to pay restitution, he neither claimed inability to pay nor offered any evidence of his financial resources in the trial court.