Cited by

at 665 (-68 (Minn. 2007) (affirming a restitution award and noting that it was “established” at the restitution hearing that the defendant had no assets and earned only $1.25 per hour working at a prison job) ), id.

this reading ignores that an objection to an item of restitution necessarily is an objection to the amount of total restitution because a successful challenge to the item will reduce the amount of restitution owed.” Seeman further asserts that “this [c]ourt’s prior caselaw indicates that the level of detail required to support an affidavit is not high.” See, n. 3 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that a challenge simply stating that certain expenses were “not allowable” “was sufficiently detailed for pur

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

The “primary purpose” of restitution is “to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

Restitution is proper so long as it is not “so attenuated in its cause that it cannot be said to result from the defendant’s criminal act.” (explaining that “a district court may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime” (footnote omitted)).

The purpose of restitution is “to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki

The “primary purpose” of restitution is “to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

And “[t]he primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

(); (noting that “the word ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss”).

The district court “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” -67 (Minn. 2007) (declining to adopt the more expansive but-for test for causation).

We next consider whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the losses claimed by A.G.’s and Riggs, d at 685–86, – 81 (Minn. 2019).

“The primary purpose of restitution is to ‘restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.’” ().

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

See, e.g., State v. Paludicki , - 68 (Minn. 2007) (evidence provided by the record); (evidence found in restitution payment schedule); (evidence provided by the PSI and the defendant’s statement)

And they “ follow naturally as a consequence of [Allison’s] crime,” Boettcher, d at 381, much like the loss of wages incurred by a murder victim’s daughter when she attended trial “to achieve closure in coping with her father’s death,”

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

See, –68 (Minn. 2007) (affirming a restitution award and noting that it was “established” at the restitution hearing that the defendant had no assets and earned only $1.25 per hour working at a prison job).

was sufficiently detailed for purposes of the statute.” n.3 (Minn. 2007).

The “primary purpose” of the restitution statute is to restore victims “to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

The main purpose of re stitution is “to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

The purpose of restitution is restoring victims “to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”

But a district court “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” (“The primary purpose of [restitution] is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”).

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position t hey were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Palubicki , 6 (Minn. 2007).

In a case awarding restitution to the children of a murder victim, the supreme court concluded that an affidavit making a “blanket assertion that [the children’s] expenses were ‘not allowable’” is “sufficiently detailed for purposes of the statute.” n.3 (Minn. 2007).

And whil e Edwards concedes that his criminal conduct was the but-for cause of the storage costs, he asserts that the connection between the storage costs and his criminal conduct is “so attenuated in 5 its cause that it cannot be said to result from [Edwards’s] criminal act.”

(noting in di cta that “ the potential exists for a restitution claim to become so attenuated in its cause that it cannot be said to result from the defendant’s criminal act”).

D E C I S I O N “The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” State v. Palubicki , d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007).

“The primary purpose of the [restitution] statute is to restore crime victims to the same financia l position they were in before the crime.”

1; State v. Palubicki , (holding that a restitution order that included reimbursement to the murder victim’s adult children for lost wages was appropriate).

15, 2014); – 66 (Minn. 2007) (noting the award of funeral expenses and crime scene cleanup costs and upholding an award of lost wages and expenses to the next of kin).

The “primary purpose” of restitution is “to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”