Cases | Roe v. State, 917 P.2d 959 (Nev. 1996) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to one count of child abuse causing substantial bodily harm to a child after police officers found his two children in a filthy motel room, with burns, bruising, and a broken rib. He was sentenced to prison time and was ordered to pay restitution “in an amount to be determined by the Division of Parole and Probation” to the county social services department and the state welfare department. On appeal, the defendant argued that a state agency is not a victim under the restitution statute and that, even if it is, the restitution order was in error because no dollar amount was specified by the trial court. The supreme court held that, in this case, state agencies can be considered victims under the restitution statute because the “harm or loss suffered was unexpected and occurred without the[ir] voluntary participation” and because the money spent by the agencies was for the benefit of the children, who were victimized by the defendant’s criminal conduct. The court also held, however, that because the court did not determine a dollar amount for the restitution order, it was inconsistent with requirements of the statute. The determination that the defendant must pay restitution was affirmed, but the order was vacated and the case remanded so the trial court could determine a dollar amount for inclusion in the restitution order.