Cited by

Before awarding restitution, “the district court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay and the loss sustained by the victim of the crime.”

District courts “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant ’s crime.” State v. Boettcher

Unless the record shows that the defendant agreed to pay for losses as part of a plea agreement, “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.” n.5 (Minn. 2019); –78 (Minn. App. 1996) (affirming a district court’s order denying a defendant’s motion to vacate restitution to the “buy fund” of a police drug task force, which was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement), rev. denied (Minn. May 21, 199

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.” State v. 6 Boettcher, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

District courts “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

The district court may order restitution 4 only for injuries that are “directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime,” and this excludes funds or items allegedly stolen before the period during which the defendant’s crimes of conviction occurred.

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)).

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).

Restitution may be ordered for a victim’s losses only if the losses “are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

But restitution may be ordered “only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

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).

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.”

But restitution may be ordered only “for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

Restitution may be ordered only “for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

n.5 (Minn. 2019), we emphasize that our analysis here does not alter the Kennedy rule that allows a court to order restitution for losses incurred as a direct result of dismissed charges when the defendant agrees to pay restitution in connection with those charges as part of the parties’ plea negotiation.

-81 (Minn. 2019) (rejecting the state’s 6 argument that a “but-for” test should apply in restitution matters and clarifying the rule as permitting restitution “only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime”).

is 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.”

It is also true that the loss must be “directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”

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.”

6 The dissent also cites State v. Boettcher , (addressing restitution after jury trial).

We have also addressed the proper causal scope of a restitution award, holding that the term “result” as used in this factor, permits district courts to consider only losses “that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” d 376, 380–81 (Minn. 2019).

“[District courts] may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” State v. Boettcher

’s income, resources, and obligations when ordering restitution, and that the record must include sufficient evidence about the defendant’s income, resources, and obligations to allow a district court to consider the defendant’s ability to pay 1 We have referred to “the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant” as the defendant’s “ability to pay.” See

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.” (quotation omitted).

“To determine whether to order restitution and the amount of restitution, a district court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay and the loss sustained by the victim of the crime.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

A distric t court has broad discretion in awarding restitution, id., but it abuses its discretion “when its decision [regarding restitution] is based on an erroneous view of the law.” 380 (Minn. 2019).

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.” (emphasis added).

“The district court has broad discretion to award restitu tion, and the district court’ s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).

And the supreme court has clearly articulated that “a district court may order restitu tion only for losses that are di rectly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”