Cases | Pratt v. State, 486 A.2d 1154 (Del. 1983) | 2018
The defendants pled guilty to third-degree burglary and first-degree criminal trespass in connection with destruction of two resort cottages. Following a restitution hearing, the trial court ordered each defendant to pay $22,955.48 in restitution as a condition of probation. On appeal, the defendants claimed that: (1) claims of insurers and adjacent property owners were not within the court’s jurisdiction for purposes of restitution because the defendants were only liable to victims listed in the indictment; (2) the State did not meet its burden in establishing the market value of the damaged property, and the defendants’ due process rights were violated by use of hearsay victim-loss statements to establish restitution; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider their ability to pay. The court held that: (1) the trial court’s consideration of loss statements prepared by adjacent property owners was proper because the plain meaning of the term “victim” is one who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of the voluntary act or undertaking of another; the court noted that insurers who make compensation to policy-holding victims are eligible for restitution; (2) the trial judge considered the market value of the damaged and destroyed property, and use of loss statements does not offend the due process clause; and (3) there is no statutory requirement that a defendant’s ability to pay be considered in determining the nature and amount of restitution. Inability to meet the obligation can be cured by ordering work for the department of corrections, and the court has the inherent power to readjust the payment schedule at any time.