Cases | State v. McBride, 940 P.2d 539 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to unlawful control over a motor vehicle after buying a car he knew to be stolen. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail, with 270 days suspended, to twenty-four months of probation, and was ordered to pay $600 in restitution to the victim for the loss of the car. Although the vehicle had been impounded by the police, it was not returned to the victim because the police incorrectly transcribed the vehicle’s identification number. On appeal, the defendant argued that the negligence of the police in failing to contact the car’s owners relieved him of any liability for any loss resulting from the sale of the impounded vehicle. The court of appeals used a modified “but for” test and found that the defendant’s argument failed because, but for the defendant’s criminal act, which resulted in the impoundment that created the opportunity for the transcription error, the victim’s loss would not have occurred. The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in failing to reduce his restitution obligation by that portion of the loss owing to the negligence of the police department. The court of appeals held that, since comparative negligence would not be available to the defendant in a civil conversion action resulting from his intentional criminal act, the trial court correctly ordered the defendant to pay restitution for the full value of the car.” The order was affirmed.