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

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