Cases | People v. Webb-Johnson, 113 P.3d 1253 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005) | 2018
Defendant pled guilty to contributing to a hazardous substance incident. The trial court ordered defendant to pay $89,313.63 in restitution to her employer. On appeal, defendant claimed that: (1) plain reading of the statute defining the term “victim” discloses that a victim is a person, not an entity; and (2) even if an entity can be a victim for purposes of restitution, the trial court erred in ordering her to pay restitution to her employer for medical expenses that the prosecution failed to establish had actually been paid. The appellate court affirmed the restitution order. Specifically, the court held that: (1) the trial court properly treated the employer as a victim for purposes of restitution. Because the context of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-602 did not require otherwise, the definition of the term “person” in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-401(8), which specifically includes corporations and other legal entities, was applicable. Further, because legal entities can be harmed by criminal conduct, excluding such entities from the definition of “person” in § 18-1.3-602 would defeat the legislative intent expressed in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-601; and (2) the employer’s claimed medical expenses were properly included in the restitution order as “anticipated future expenses”.