A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law."State v. Rogers , 2018 ND 244, ¶ 23, 919 N.W.2d 193 (citing State v. Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 4, 907 N.W.2d 773 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). "The district courts possess a ‘wide degree of discretion when determining restitution awards.’ "

A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. State v. Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 4, 907 N.W.2d 773 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The district courts possess a "wide degree of discretion when determining restitution awards."

It is a defendant’s burden to raise and prove an inability to pay restitution. State v. Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 16, 907 N.W.2d 773 (relying on State v. Tupa , 2005 ND 25, 691 N.W.2d 579 ). Even if a defendant has no current ability to pay due to imprisonment, a defendant may have an ability to pay based on the possibility of future gainful employment.

A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law." State v. Bruce, 2018 ND 45, ¶ 4, 907 N.W.2d 773 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (quoting State v. Carson, 2017 ND 196, ¶ 5, 900 N.W.2d 41). Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that is fully reviewable on appeal.

Carson , at ¶ 6 (quoting State v. Pippin , 496 N.W.2d 50, 52-53 (N.D. 1993) ). [¶6] " Section 25(1)(n), N.D. Const. Art I, provides crime victims, ‘[t]he right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal or delinquent conduct.’ " State v. Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 11, 907 N.W.2d 773. Section 25 (1)(n) does not change the restitution that a district court may order under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1)(a).

" State v. Rogers , 2018 ND 244, ¶ 23, 919 N.W.2d 193 (citing State v. Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 4, 907 N.W.2d 773 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). "The district courts possess a ‘wide degree of discretion when determining restitution awards.’ "

Considering whether a defendant has the ability to pay in no way violates any express or implied restriction under N.D. Const. art. I, § 25 (1)(n). It is unnecessary to consider the constitutional provision if a defendant has the ability to pay. [State v.] Bruce , 2018 ND 45, ¶ 17, 907 N.W.2d 773. In Bruce , we affirmed the district court judgment requiring the defendant to pay $7,157.20 in restitution when the defendant had no assets and was facing imprisonment followed by supervised probation.

[¶5] The State argues our decision in State v. Bruce, 2018 ND 45, 907 N.W.2d 773 is dispositive. In Bruce, the defendant argued the district court improperly awarded restitution for the funeral expenses of the victim because the father of the victim received money from a life insurance policy to pay for the funeral expenses.

We note that other states have declined to offset life-insurance proceeds against restitution awards. See, e.g., State v. Bruce, 907 N.W.2d 773, 776-77 (N.D. 2018) (affirming the district court's award of restitution for funeral expenses that were paid by a life-insurance policy); Brown v. State, 657 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (stating that "whether the source of any portion of the funeral expenses was life insurance benefits is immaterial" in determining restitution). This court is "not bound to follow precedent from other states or federal courts," but "these authorities can be persuasive," especially when Minnesota courts have not addressed the question.