Cases | State v. Tupa, 691 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 2005) | 2018
The defendants pled guilty to felony criminal mischief resulting from their role in the destruction of a farmstead owned by the victims. Each the defendant was ordered to pay $12,000 in restitution to the victims payable at $500 per month during their 24-month probations. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on the victim’s damage figures, which were based on replacement costs rather than costs of repair or diminutions in fair market value. The defendants also claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in determining their ability to pay because they were full-time college students with limited financial resources. The supreme court held that: (1) the trial court is not required to itemize each intricate, individual calculation where an array of losses occur; (2) civil tort statute N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03-09.2 supported use of replacement costs under restitution statute § 12.1-32-08 because there was a fundamental connection between the aims of the statutes. In addition, there was a strong correlation between the term “actual damages” in the former statute and the requirement that damages be “actually incurred” in the latter; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the restitution payments. A college education does not take precedence over answering for one’s criminal misdeeds. The defendants could seek gainful employment and begin repayment.