NCJ Number
108064
Journal
North Dakota Law Review Volume: 59 Issue: 3 Dated: (1983) Pages: 495-504
Date Published
1983
Length
10 pages
Annotation
Criminal law statutes often provide for restitution as either a condition for probation or as a separate sentencing alternative. This article discusses three elements a court must consider when ordering a defendant to make restitution to survivors of an auto accident caused by his drunken driving.
Abstract
The first element defines the victim or aggrieved party to whom the defendant is ordered to make restitution. Going beyond the identification of direct victims, courts have defined aggrieved parties as survivors of an accident, parents of a deceased child, and those legally responsible for the pecuniary damage of victims. The second element determines the damages to be addressed through restitution. A well-recognized restriction on the use of restitution is that the ordered amount shall not exceed the actual damages or loss caused by the wrongdoer. The third element includes factors the trial court should consider when sentencing the defendant to pay restitution. However, restitution is a viable remedy only when the defendant is able to pay. Sentencing guidelines allow a defendant to petition the court for the remission of the restitution payment when he has difficulty in making the payments. North Dakota adopted portions of the Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act. The act does not appear to apply to the typical negligent homicide case involving a drunk driver and an injured party or parties. 88 footnotes.