State v. Riggs, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2014. Further Review Granted, 6/25/2014. D.S. started a fist fight with Mr. Riggs, who had tried to avoid the fight all together. One thing lead to another and Mr. Riggs stabbed D.S. with a knife. Mr. Riggs eventually entered a guilty plea to terroristic threats. As part of the settlement. Mr. Riggs agreed to pay all of D.S.’s out of pocket medical expenses, agreed to pay the cost of repairs to the place where the fight took place, and agreed to pay the costs to D.S. to hire an assistant to help him at work while he recovered from his injuries. However, Mr. Riggs asked that he only be ordered to pay one-half of these employment related expenses because D.S. was the initial aggressor. The trial court thought that this was fair, and that it had the inherent authority to do it.
Not so. The restitution statute restricts what the trial court can consider to: the amount of economic loss, and the income, resources and obligations of the defendant. The role of D.S. is not one of the things that the statute permits the trial court to consider so it cannot apportion fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment