ILNews

COA finds evidence supporting restitution order too flimsy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A victim of a burglary will have to turn to the civil process to get restitution after the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions a trial court’s order that provided the victim with $711.95 in compensation.

The state charged Carlin Iltzsch with Class B felony burglary and filed a habitual offender allegation after he was caught burglarizing the Indianapolis home of James Whittemore on May 30, 2011. Iltzsch was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years on the burglary court, enhanced by 10 years based on the habitual offender finding.

In addition, the trial court ordered Iltzsch to pay restitution in the amount of $711.95. The restitution order was based solely on the Victim Impact Statement from Whittemore.

Iltzsch appealed, arguing the evidence submitted at his sentencing hearing about the victim’s loss was insufficient to support the trial court’s order of restitution.

Although the COA acknowledged a defendant waives appellate review of the restitution order if he or she fails to object at trial to the entry of the restitution order or to the evidence concerning the amount of the restitution, it noted the “vast weight of recent caselaw” that indicates appellate courts will review restitution orders even where the defendant did not object.

The COA then cited J.H. v. State, 950 N.E.2d 731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), as being instructive when considering the type of evidence necessary to support a restitution order. Whittemore only provided “bare, unsworn assertions” that his property had been damaged and that his total loss was $711.95.  

Writing for the majority, Judge Paul Mathias concluded, “The State had a full and fair opportunity to obtain and present evidence concerning Whittemore’s actual loss at Iltzsch’s sentencing hearing, but failed to do so. We believe that allowing the State to conduct a new restitution hearing and to present additional evidence concerning the loss would allow the State an inappropriate second bite at the apple. We therefore conclude that the State is not entitled to hold a new restitution order. We acknowledge that Whittemore must now resort to the civil process if he wishes to seek redress for his losses. However, this remedy will require nothing more than what the law requires: sufficient, admissible evidence to support his claims.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT