ILNews

Restitution for lost wages an error

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in ordering a man to pay restitution of the lost wages of his victim because there's no direct link the man's criminal recklessness caused the victim to be fired, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Douglas Wolff v. State of Indiana, No. 27A05-0907-CR-368, Douglas Wolff pleaded guilty to criminal recklessness and disorderly conduct for firing a shotgun in the direction of co-worker Michael Smithhisler. Wolff and Smithhisler worked for Wolff's dad, Merrill, at the time of the incident. Smithhisler was fired shortly after the incident, which he claimed was because he pressed charges against Wolff. Merrill said he fired Smithhisler because he didn't report for work for several days after the incident, didn't answer Merrill's phone calls, and when he did come back to work, said he didn't think it was the best idea for him to come back right after the incident.

Wolff's sentences were suspended and he was ordered to pay $921 in counseling expenses and $12,789 in lost wages to Smithhisler, and $1,631 to the Grant County Sheriff's Department. Smithhisler testified the incident made him have trouble sleeping and caused him to constantly worry about being shot. He also said he had trouble holding down a job after the shooting.

Wolff only appealed the order of restitution for lost wages.

"It is true that Wolff's actions in firing his shotgun set in motion the chain of events that eventually led to the termination of Smithhisler's job," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. "But Wolff did not terminate Smithhisler; his father, Merrill, did."

The fact Smithhisler was fired and couldn't keep a job was not "a result of the crime" to support ordering restitution. Wolff's actions may have indirectly led to Smithhisler's firing and lost earnings, but Indiana Code Section 35-50-5-3(a)(4) requires more than that, she continued.

Smithhisler's claim is inappropriate for criminal restitution, but it may give rise to file a civil claim against Merrill. The appellate court reversed the award of lost earnings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT