State v. Q.D.R., 2024AP1067, 12/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a matter of first impression, COA rejects Q.D.R.’s statutory construction arguments and holds that funeral costs are recoverable under the juvenile restitution statute.
“Quentin” entered a plea admitting a robbery with use of force and agreed to have a separate allegation of felony murder dismissed and read-in. (¶2). The victim’s family requested restitution, which included funeral costs. (¶3). The circuit court granted the request but reduced the overall amount to account for Quentin’s ability to pay. (Id.).
On appeal, Quentin argues that the circuit court was not permitted to order restitution for funeral costs under the plain language of § 938.34(5), as that statute–unlike the adult restitution statute–does not specifically name such costs as a recoverable expense. (¶7). He argues that this difference in draftsmanship reflects a different legislative intent. (Id.).
COA disagrees, however, and holds that the court’s order is authorized under statutory language which otherwise permits “reasonable restitution” arising from damage or injury caused by a juvenile. (¶8). The circuit court has discretion to determine what is “reasonable” and, significant to COA’s holding, is given wide interpretative latitude by virtue of § 938.01(1), which instructs the reader to liberally construe the juvenile justice code so as to further its underlying objectives. (Id.). COA therefore distinguishes away an unpublished decision relied on by Quentin, State v. J.P., where COA previously accepted a similar argument as to the differences between the adult and juvenile restitution statutes. (¶11).
