Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Restitution — Law Enforcement Officer Not “Victim,” § 973.20(1r) re: Injuries Suffered While Apprehending Defendant

State v. Anthony Houston Lee, 2008 WI App 185
For Lee: Carl W. Chessir

Issue/Holding:

¶11      As noted, Wis. Stat. § 973.20 authorizes a trial court to order restitution to victims of a “[c]rime considered at sentencing,” which includes “any crime for which the defendant was convicted and any read-in crime.” Sec. 973.20(1g)(a) & (1r). We conclude that this language is clear and unambiguous, and that it requires us to reverse the restitution order. Here, the two crimes that were considered at sentencing were armed robbery (to which Lee pled guilty) and armed burglary (which was read in). Lee was not charged with fleeing an officer, assaulting an officer or any crime related to his flight from officer Lindstrom. Accordingly, Lindstrom was not a victim of a crime considered at sentencing, and neither he nor the insurance company that paid expenses related to his injuries can receive restitution. [6]

The court (¶10) refers to prior caselaw discussion relative to the test for law enforcement restitution—whether the loss is a direct or collateral consequence of the criminal conduct, State v. Earl W. Haase, 2006 WI App 86—but concludes that the present case is resolved simply by virtue of the fact that the injury wasn’t part of a “crime considered at sentencing.”

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment