Cases | State v. Vick, 587 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1998 | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to unlawful entry into a vehicle, theft, possession of stolen property, and leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the victim and to the victim’s insurance company. On appeal, the defendant claimed that: (1) the trial court erred in awarding restitution to the insurance company, which neither requested restitution nor appeared at the restitution hearing; and (2) the insurance company was not a victim under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-08. The supreme court held that: (1) under the mandatory restitution scheme, the trial court’s obligation to order restitution did not change when the victim or other recipient did not specifically request restitution; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering restitution to the insurance company because it was in the same position of economic loss as the victim. However, the judgment reflected an error in the amount of restitution, as the insurance company paid an amount less than the restitution ordered. Accordingly, the court directed amendment of the judgment to reflect the correct amounts of restitution.