State v Ogden

Ogden appealed the criminal restitution order in his sex abuse case. The Court vacated and remanded. It held that Utah Code 77-38a-101 to -601 requires restitution that “results from” or is “caused by” criminal acts, that these terms are best read to adopt proximate causation as the restitution award becomes a civil judgment, it is unlikely the legislature created dual tracks for recovery with civil actions requiring proximate causation and criminal restitution not and this is consistent with how the Court construed the state sovereign immunity act. It rejected the state’s contrary augments holding the requirement to award “all” damages does not explain what the causation standard is, the Laycock decision did not decide the issue presented here, purpose is of little use in this case, whether intentional torts have relaxed foreseeability standards does not explain what the causation standard is, cases involving insurance contracts are irrelevant and it is unclear the use of an improper but for standard was harmless here. Offering guidance on remand, the Court held that future expense restitution must be both necessary and firmly established in the record and expressed concern that the district court ordered at least some of the restitution on speculation instead of firmly established facts as there was no factual boas for the medications portion and awarded inpatient therapy based on evidence it may be helpful which is insufficient.