Cases | Moore v. State, 694 So. 2d 836 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) | 2018
The defendant pled no contest to second degree grand theft and was ordered to pay restitution of $75,451 as a condition of probation. At the restitution hearing, the State offered hearsay testimony as evidence of the amount of the victim’s loss, but failed to offer any documentary evidence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the restitution order on three grounds: the State failed to prove the amount of the victim’s loss; the court erred in the amount of restitution it ordered; and the trial court erred by ordering restitution despite evidence that the victim had been reimbursed by insurance. First, the court of appeals held that “[b]ecause the State failed to prove the amount of the victim’s loss and the trial court failed to properly consider the defendant’s ability to pay,” the order of restitution was improper. Second, the court held that the trial court had erred in ordering the defendant to pay restitution in an amount beyond her ability to pay, as testified to at the restitution hearing. Finally, the court held that trial court did not err “by ordering that restitution be paid to the victim despite testimony that the victim received an insurance payment for $9,000 as a result of this incident” because “[t]he insurance company is subrogated to the rights of the victim and restitution can be ordered for the full amount of the victim’s loss regardless of reimbursement to the victim.” The order of restitution was reversed and remanded for another hearing.