Joint & Several Restitution Does Not Require Apportionment of Injuries Among Defendants

State v. Miller, Minn.Ct.App., 2/10/2014.  Mr. Miller and a Mr. Sandberg did a beat down on a Mr. Montplaisir.  It had something to do with Mr. Montplaisir accusing Mr. Sandberg of “sexual improprieties” towards an unnamed woman whose exact relation to either Mr. Miller or Mr. Sanadberg – or Mr. Montplaisir come to that - isn’t disclosed.  Mr. Montplaisir’s medical treatment left him owing some twelve grand, part of which he owed and the rest was on the insurance carrier.  Both wanted their money.

Mr. Miller pled guilty to disorderly conduct, yes, disorderly conduct.  The court stayed his sentence and ordered him to pay the twelve grand, joint and several with Mr. Sandberg.  Mr. Miller objected to this restitution order for a number of reasons.  One was that the state had to divvy up the blows by the two men and then assign a monetary value to the injuries from those blows.  This, Mr. Miller, explained, was required because restitution law says that the court should order restitution only for losses the defendant “directly caused” by his offense conduct.  Needless to say the court of appeals did not buy into this sophistry.  Mr. Montplaisir’s right to restitution trumps any rights of Mr. Miller and Mr. Sandberg to a blow by blow accounting.

Mr. Miller also complained that the trial court did not adequately consider his ability to pay the money.  The court pronounces that the trial court must account for a defendant’s ability to pay but provides absolutely no concrete guidance on just how the court is to do that.  The message seems to be that so long as the court says the magic words, “I considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” that leaves the court free to pretty much do whatever it wants.  About the only restriction is that there must be something in the record – a presentence investigation report will due – over which the court can recite the mantra, “I considered the defendant’s ability to pay.”