Cases | State v. Corbitt, 82 P.3d 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to illegal possession of a stolen vehicle and was ordered to pay $5,623.72 in restitution to the rightful owners of the truck, the victims. This amount included the difference between the price the victims paid for the truck and the amount of the insurance company reimbursement and two monthly loan payments the victims made after the truck was stolen. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the victims suffered pecuniary damages, as required under the restitution statute, because the victims were fully reimbursed by their insurance company. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the victims sustained pecuniary damages caused by the defendant’s criminal activity because the defendant inflicted special damages that the victims could have recovered from him in a civil action for conversion. Furthermore, by admitting his guilt, the defendant firmly established his responsibility for the pecuniary damages. The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in using the purchase price of the truck, rather than the insurance company’s valuation to determine restitution. The court of appeals held that the trial court was persuaded that the purchase price of the truck was a more accurate reflection of the fair market value than the insurance company’s valuation, given the short period of time between the purchase and the theft and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The order of restitution was affirmed.