High court overturns Arizona law capping restitution amounts

Posted 5/4/21

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a state law limiting restitution awards for economic losses caused by certain criminal driving offenses that cause another person to …

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe.

For $5.99, less than 20 cents a day, subscribers will receive unlimited access to the website, including access to our Daily Independent e-edition, which features Arizona-specific journalism and items you can’t find in our community print products, such as weather reports, comics, crossword puzzles, advice columns and so much more six days a week.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

High court overturns Arizona law capping restitution amounts

Posted

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a state law limiting restitution awards for economic losses caused by certain criminal driving offenses that cause another person to be killed or seriously injured.

The 2006 law imposing a $10,000 cap on criminal restitution in those cases violated a right to prompt and full restitution under Victims' Bill of Rights protections in the Arizona Constitution, the ruling.

The justices upheld a Court of Appeals decision that reversed a Maricopa County Superior Court judge’s ruling that set a man’s restitution order at $10,000, down from the over $61,000 amount set by a Phoenix Municipal Court judge.

The case involved a defendant who had appealed the municipal court's order. Prosecutors then appealed the Superior Court order.

Patel argued that the constitutional provision required prompt restitution but didn't specify full restitution, but the Supreme Court said that meaning was understood.

The Supreme Court also noted that he Legislature in 2018 increased the $10,000 cap to $100,000 but said that change didn't affect the basic issue before the court.

Comments