Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: April 17, 2008

Contact person(s):

Media Coordinator, Donna Edwards - 565-3099 Media Spokesperson, Assistant District Attorney Christine Cook

Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California

DA WINS APPEAL:
TRIAL COURTS MUST AWARD VICTIMS FULL COMPENSATION

District Attorney Passalacqua announced that his office successfully appealed a trial court’s ruling awarding a crime victim a diminished restitution award. In a written ruling handed down March 26, 2008, the Appellate Division of the Sonoma Superior Court unanimously held that the California Constitution and implementing statutes require trial court judges to impose full restitution awards to crime victims. Only if it finds “compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so,” and states those reasons on the record, can a trial court award less than full restitution, the appeals panel said.

DA Passalacqua said, “My office is committed to seeking justice for crime victims. We were confident in our position that this domestic violence victim was legally entitled to restitution for the counseling she needed as a result of the defendant’s crimes against her.“

The ruling came in an appeal from a domestic violence conviction in which the victim-wife had undergone a year of psychological counseling after her husband had been convicted of violating a restraining order after hearing, domestic violence prevention. The decision overturned a trial court’s ruling that had reduced a restitution award by the State’s Victim Compensation Board from $4,200 to $1,170. The trial court must now enter an order awarding full restitution in the case unless it finds clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.

The trial court erred, the appeals panel wrote, when it decided the lesser award was sufficient, despite the Compensation Board’s finding that the victim’s need for therapy was “a direct result of the crime and a hundred percent related to the crime . . . .” Relying on provisions of the State Constitution and the Penal Code, the court’s opinion pointed out that a defendant’s inability to pay a restitution award is no defense and that victim’s economic losses include mental health counseling.