Hampton v. State, 141 P.3d 101 (Wyo. 2006)

Cases | Hampton v. State, 141 P.3d 101 (Wyo. 2006) | 2018

The defendant pled no contest to forgery and using false written statements to obtain property or credit after using the victim’s personal identifying information without authorization to acquire a credit card in the victim’s name. The defendant was ordered to pay $15,113 in restitution to the victim. During sentencing, the victim made a claim for restitution for permanent destruction of credit, loss of purchasing opportunities, income tax penalties related to cashing out his retirement account because he could not secure a loan, and high interest rates on a subsequent car loan due to bad credit. The district court ordered restitution only for the income tax penalties and the increased interest amount. On appeal, the defendant contended that the restitution order was erroneous. The supreme court clarified that a trial court may only award restitution, or pecuniary damages recoverable in a civil action, to a victim of a crime who suffers loss as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal activities. As such, the State bears the burden of proving the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The supreme court found that a victim impact statement and further victim testimony was insufficient evidence of the victim’s credit status prior to the defendant’s criminal activities to establish a link between the victim’s current credit and the defendant’s criminal activity. The order of restitution was reversed.