State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1831

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Malachi Daniel Smith,
Appellant.

Filed July 10, 2023
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Faribault County District Court
File No. 22-CR-22-160

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Cameron Davis, Faribault County Attorney, Blue Earth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Greg Scanlan , Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
According to a criminal complaint, Malachi Smith led a sheriff’s deputy on a high-
speed chase in and around the City of Blue Earth before colliding with the pursuing squad
car, leaping from his moving car, fleeing on foot, attempting to steal a utility vehicle,
2
violently resisting arrest, being found in possession of methamphetamine, and refusing to
comply with a warrant authorizing deputies to procure a sample of his blood or urine for
chemical testing. Smith pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a chemical test in exchange
for the state agreeing to the dismissal of eight other charges. The district court ordered
Smith to pay about $6,300 in restitution for damage to the squad car. Smith appeals the
restitution order, contending that his crime of conviction is not related to the conduct that
damaged the squad car. Because Smith did not make this legal argument in the district
court, the challenge is beyond the scope of our review on appeal, and we affirm.
FACTS
Sheriff’s Deputy Briar Bonin saw a car driven by Malachi Smith traveling at high
speeds entering the City of Blue Earth on an early morning in March 2022. Smith turned
off the car’s lights after the deputy began following him, and the deputy activated his squad
car’s emergency lights and siren to initiate a traffic stop. Smith drove rapidly and erratically
with Deputy Bonin pursuing throughout Blue Earth. Smith ignored traffic-control devices
and reached speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.
Smith turned his lights on and pulled over to the side of the road outside of town.
But he then quickly made a U-turn and headed back toward Blue Earth. Deputy Bonin
positioned his squad car to block Smith’s car from reentering the city. Smith collided with
the squad car and continued his elusive driving. Deputies eventually caught Smith, who
forcefully resisted arrest. The deputies searched Smith’s person and found a substance that
tested positive as methamphetamine. They sought and received a warrant to obtain a blood
3
or urine sample from Smith for chemical testing. Smith nevertheless refused to provide a
sample.
The state charged Smith with nine crimes: first-degree burglary involving an assault,
fleeing an officer while causing bodily injury, obstructing the legal process by interfering
with a peace officer, fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, attempted theft,
first-degree damage to a public safety motor vehicle, fourth-degree assault on a peace
officer, refusal to submit to chemical testing, and driving with a cancelled license. Smith
agreed to plead guilty for refusing to submit to a chemical test in exchange for dismissal
of the remaining offenses along with several other pending criminal matters. Smith
acknowledged that h e could be sentenced to an executed term of imprisonment of 42
months and to pay restitution related to any uninsured medical costs accrued by the peace
officers involved in the incident. Smith’s counsel agreed that he would not challenge an
award of restitution based on the crime of conviction. At the plea hearing, Smith admitted
that he refused to submit to a chemical test as alleged in the criminal complaint.
The district court accepted Smith’s guilty plea, sentenced him to 42 months in
prison, and ordered him to pay appropriate restitution at an amount to be determined later.
The Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust had filed an affidavit earlier that day
seeking restitution to recover $6,312 for the damage to the squad car. Smith opposed the
restitution request, arguing that the deputy rather than Smith was responsible for the
collision and that Smith lacked the resources to pay restitution. During the consequent
restitution hearing, Smith argued through counsel that “no restitution should be paid at all”
because the deputy’s recklessness, not Smith’s conduct, caused the damage, and because
4
Smith could not afford to pay. The district court rejected the arguments and ordered Smith
to pay restitution in the amount requested. Smith appeals.
DECISION
Smith challenges the restitution order. We review orders awarding restitution for an
abuse of discretion, “[b]ut determining whether an item meets the statutory requirements
for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” State v.
Ramsay, 789 N.W.2d 513, 517 (Minn. App. 2010). Smith contends specifically that the
restitution order was not authorized because his offense of conviction—refusing to submit
to a chemical test—is not directly related to the conduct that damaged the squad car. It is
true that the district court may order restitution for “out-of-pocket losses resulting from” a
crime for which a defendant is convicted. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a), (c) (2022). It
is also true that the loss must be “directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence
of, the defendant’s crime.” State v. Boettcher, 931 N.W.2d 376, 381 (Minn. 2019). But for
the reasons that follow, we will not reach the merits of Smith’s argument that the damage
precipitating the restitution order was not directly caused by or does not follow naturally
as a consequence of his crime of conviction.
We resolve this dispute without reaching the merits of Smith’s argument on appeal
because it is an argument that he did not raise in the district court. In the district court,
Smith raised a factual challenge to the district court’s restitution basis—contending that
someone other than he caused the damage underlying the restitution claim, and on appeal
he raises a legal argument about the district court’s restitution authority—contending that
damage that did not arise from his crime of conviction cannot support the restitution claim.
5
A defendant may challenge the district court’s legal authority to order restitution. See State
v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 2011). But he must make that argument to the
district court before he can raise it on appeal. See id. at 648 (acknowledging that legal
challenges to sentences typically must be made to the district court) ; Roby v. State, 547
N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (declaring that appellant’s “failure to raise the issue before
the district court at trial precludes its litigation on appeal”). Smith did not argue to the
district court that it lacked authority to order r estitution because the damage did not result
from his crime of refusing to submit to chemical testing. He instead argued only that his
actions were not those that caused the damage and that he could not afford to pay. Smith
did not make the argument he raises on appeal to the district court, and we therefore decline
to consider its merits.
Affirmed.