Delinquency Case Law

In re Brittany L. (June 10, 2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381[122 Cal.Rptr.2d 376]. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7.

The juvenile court declared the youth to be a ward of the court, sustaining a petition filed under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and finding an offense of felony vandalism. The youth caused damage to the victim's house by throwing eggs at it. At the restitution hearing, the court ordered victim restitution of $500, the amount of the victims' insurance deductible. The victims had requested full reimbursement for the repair costs because they did not want to report the damage to his insurance company. The court required the victims to pursue independent remedies against the insurer and/or the youth in a civil action for full recovery. The appellate court, after appellant youth filed a notice of appeal and the People chose not to file a brief, requested briefing on whether the juvenile court followed the mandates of section 730.6 during the restitution hearing. The youth also appealed for the determination of whether the order should be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing with the requisite findings on the victims' entitlement to direct restitution.

The Court of Appeal vacated the disposition order and remanded for a new restitution hearing. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 requires minors found to be persons within the meaning of section 602 to pay restitution to the victim "of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for all determined economic losses . . . including . . . the actual cost of repairing the property . . . ." Trial courts, in ordering victim restitution, are not to consider reimbursement from third parties, such as insurance companies. The appellate court reasoned that the victims should be fully reimbursed directly by the youth without regard to potential insurance reimbursement, based on the California Supreme Court's reasoning in People v. Birkett, 21 Cal.4th 226. Therefore, the juvenile court's order should have included all proven losses from the crime without regard to insurance reimbursement. The appellate court also found that section 730.6 required the sentencing court to consider the evidence and determine the amount of restitution necessary to fully reimburse victims. Also, in order to satisfy due process and ensure fundamental fairness, the youth must have a reasonable opportunity to challenge the accuracy or validity of the claimed losses. The juvenile court in this case erred in not considering the evidence proffered to challenge the claimed losses. The appellate court thus vacated the disposition order and remanded for a review of all proffered evidence of the victims' claimed losses and the challenges to the amount or validity of the losses. On remand, the juvenile court must also determine the amount necessary for full reimbursement for all economic loss as a result of the crime unless there are compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so. The trial court, in making this determination, may use "any rational method . . . provided it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole."