Opinion
Nos. 34779-2-II; 34788-1-II; 34795-4-II; 34782-2-II.
November 20, 2007.
Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 05-8-01991-1, Paul M. Boyle, J. Pro Tem., entered April 3, 2006.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Penoyar, JJ.
Juveniles D.K.J. and J.B.R. each pleaded guilty to one count of first degree malicious mischief and one count of unlawful removal of a grave marker. In this consolidated appeal, they challenge the trial court's restitution order of $170,737.31. We vacate the order and remand.
FACTS
D.K.J. and J.B.R. each pleaded guilty to one count of first degree malicious mischief, RCW 9A.48.070(1)(a), and one count of unlawful removal of a grave marker, RCW 68.60.040(1), for the vandalism of approximately 303 gravestones at Pioneer Cemetery in Sumner.
The juvenile court held a contested restitution hearing. John Wells, the cemetery operation supervisor, testified about the damage. He said that more than 30 gravestones were broken into pieces and either had to be glued back together or were permanently destroyed. He also said that cemetery workers had to set the remaining tipped gravestones back on their foundations, either by hand, monument lifting device, or backhoe. And he testified that, although private families owned the gravestones and the cemetery was only responsible for site maintenance, it had undertaken to upright and repair the gravestones after this incident as a community contributor.
Wells estimated that 26 of these markers dated before 1889.
Based on estimates provided by Tacoma Monument, Wells testified that it would cost $100,300 to replace the gravestones that were destroyed. He said that the resetting fees for all of the damaged gravestones totaled $63,900 and that the cemetery incurred $6,537.31 in labor costs in its repair effort.
Wells further testified that, although the cemetery was not actively seeking families impacted by the vandalism, five families had contacted the cemetery about having their family's gravestone replaced, including Rod Schrengohst and Eleanor Riser. He testified that it would cost $8,000 to replace Schrengohst's family gravestone and $4,500 to replace Riser's family gravestone.
In closing argument, the State confirmed that, of the five families who initially made inquiries to the cemetery, Schrengohst and Riser had been in communication with the State's counsel and had provided contact information where they could receive restitution awards.
Finding "an incredible amount of damage," the juvenile court ordered that D.K.J. and J.B.R. pay $170,737.31 in restitution. Report of Proceedings (April 3, 2006) at 46. The court ordered the funds distributed as follows: $158,237.31 to Pioneer Cemetery; $4,500 to Riser; and $8,000 to Schrengohst.
Although the juvenile court found that the restitution amount was $170,037.31, it signed an order for $170,737.31.
ANALYSIS
We review restitution orders under the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (JJA), chapter 13.40 RCW, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 807, 770 P.2d 1056 (1989); State v. Morse, 45 Wn. App. 197, 199, 723 P.2d 1209 (1986). The trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on untenable or unreasonable grounds. State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003).
The JJA's purpose, in part, is to provide restitution to victims of juvenile crime. RCW 13.40.010(2)(h). Under the JJA, the juvenile court is required to impose such restitution "to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed." RCW 13.40.190(1).
The JJA defines restitution in relevant part as "financial reimbursement by the offender to the victim, . . . limited to easily ascertainable damages for injury to or loss of property." RCW 13.40.020(22). A victim is "any person who has sustained emotional, psychological, physical, or financial injury to person or property as a direct result of the offense charged." RCW 13.40.190(4). The terms "victim" and "person" are interpreted broadly to include cities, state agencies, and public and private entities. See RCW 1.16.080(1); State v. Davison, 116 Wn.2d 917, 920-21, 809 P.2d 1374 (1991); State v. Forbes, 43 Wn. App. 793, 800, 719 P.2d 941 (1986); State v. Jeffries, 42 Wn. App. 142, 145, 709 P.2d 819 (1985); State v. Barnett, 36 Wn. App. 560, 562, 675 P.2d 626 (1984).
D.K.J. and J.B.R. challenge the juvenile court's authority to impose restitution, arguing that the cemetery is not a victim within the meaning of the JJA because it had no legal or financial responsibility to repair the gravestones and suffered no reimbursable loss by voluntarily expending resources to repair the damages. They also argue that Pioneer Cemetery is not entitled to restitution for its claimed lost resetting fees.
Where an entity pays money to repair damage or negate the harm caused by a criminal act, it may be entitled to an award of restitution, even if it had no legal obligation to pay. See Davison, 116 Wn.2d at 918-21 (addressing whether restitution could be awarded to the City of Seattle for wages it paid to a city worker who was an assault victim unable to work and finding that funds paid to the victim were city property and so restitution was proper because the city was an injured party, even absent proof that it was legally obligated to pay).
Washington courts have also established that a restitution recipient may be one other than the immediate crime victim. See State v. Barr, 99 Wn.2d 75, 80, 658 P.2d 1247 (1983) (finding that restitution to the widow and children of a victim of negligent homicide was authorized and served legitimate legislative goals); Forbes, 43 Wn. App. at 800 (finding the trial court did not exceed its authority by ordering restitution to a state agency for the gambling losses of an undercover detective); Jeffries, 42 Wn. App. at 146 (affirming reimbursement to the Department of Labor and Industries for payment of an assault victim's disability and medical expenses); Barnett, 36 Wn. App. at 562 (finding an insurance company entitled to reimbursement where it paid for losses sustained by its insured from a burglary).
Here, Pioneer Cemetery expended money and labor in order to repair the damage caused by D.K.J.'s and J.B.R.'s criminal acts on its grounds. That it did not own the gravestones and was not the most immediate victim does not resolve whether it is entitled to restitution. To the contrary, it was an injured party and is thus entitled to restitution for related expenditures, regardless of whether it had any legal or financial obligation to make repairs. This is particularly so in the light of practical difficulties posed here in terms of identifying and contacting all victims, as well as the cemetery's business need to maintain its appearance even if individual victims themselves did not come forward to repair the damage. See State v. Johnson, 69 Wn. App. 189, 193, 847 P.2d 960 (1993) (the purpose and policy underlying the JJA is to ensure that offenders pay restitution to their victims and are not permitted to escape just punishment by an overly technical construction of the statute).
RCW 13.40.020(22) limits restitution to "easily ascertainable damages for injury to or loss of property." A victim's labor and replacement costs are properly included in a restitution order, particularly where the cost estimate is uncontradicted and where it provides the trial court with a logical and reasonable basis for establishing the victim's loss. Horner, 53 Wn. App. at 809.
Here, Pioneer Cemetery provided an uncontradicted estimate that it expended $6,537.31 in labor costs and $63,900 in resetting fees to repair and reset the damaged monuments. It is entitled to reimbursement for these ascertainable expenditures, and we affirm the trial court's award of restitution with respect to these items.
We also affirm the trial court's award of restitution in the amount of $8,000 to Schrengohst and $4,500 to Riser. These individuals were direct crime victims and are clearly entitled to restitution for the readily ascertainable damages caused by D.K.J. and J.B.R., as estimated by Tacoma Monument and testified to by Wells.
In sum, we direct the trial court to enter restitution against D.K.J. and J.B.R. in the following manner: $6,537.31 for labor costs and $63,900 for resetting fees, totaling an award of $70,437.31 to Pioneer Cemetery; and $8,000 to Schrengohst and $4,500 to Riser, totaling an award of $12,500 to the individual families; for an aggregate total restitution in the amount of $82,937.31.
We vacate the remainder of the juvenile court's restitution award because Pioneer Cemetery is not entitled to restitution in the form of replacement fees for those gravestones for which the families have not sought replacement. We further remand for revision of the restitution order in accordance with this opinion.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is
so ordered.
We concur:
Bridgewater, J.
Penoyar, J.