Cited by

1(a) (2018)); (remanding for reconsideration of the appellant’s ability to pay restitution in light of a more-developed record); –48 (Minn. 1984) (remanding for reconsideration of a restitution award because the record did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the award, although it did establish a basis for the appellant’s ability to pay).

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

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

“A 4 Though we do not reach ambiguity, our interpretation finds support in the well- established purpose of the restitution statute, which is to “restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.” Palubicki, d at 666; (stating that restitution is about “restoring or compensating the victim for his loss”).

for the proposition that the restitution available to CVRB is not compensation for a victim’s injury suffered from criminal harm and that compensation to CVRB has a wholly different character than 7 restitution payments made to a victim to restore the victim for his loss.

See State v. Maidi , (stating that legislative hi story of Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045 shows the restitution statut e was intended primar ily to compensate victims); (indicating the primary purpose of restitution is to compensate the victim).

See, (remanding for reconsideration of restitution award to allow parties to present evidence on the amount of loss to the victim); Keehn, d at 409 (reversing and remanding restitution order for further findings “on the nature and amounts of expenses”).

(remanding for further fact-finding when the record did not provide a factual basis for a restitution award).

See, –46 (Minn. 1984) (holding that evidence admitted in rebuttal was admissible as Spreigl evidence).

A victim’s loss must “have some factual relationship to the crime committed.” State v. Nelson , (concluding that factual record did not support restitution award).

1 (1992) (emphasis added)).4 It is this right to receive restitution that is central to the case before us. 3 In State v. Fader, the Minnesota Supreme Court applied that statute and interpreted the word “restitution” to mean “restoring or compensating the victim for his loss.” d 42, 48 (1984).

Palubicki, d at 666; State v. Terpstra , d 280, 283 (Minn. 1996)

The victim’s loss also must “have some factual relationship to the crime committed.” Nelson, d at 347; (concluding that factual record did not support restitution award).

(remanding where the record did not provide factual basis to support amount of restitution ordered).

see also Gaiovnik, d at 651; review denied (Minn. Apr.

(remanding where the record did not provide factual basis to support the amount of restitution ordered).

(“In our opinion, the word ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss.”).

3(a) (stating “the proper amount or type of restitution must be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence”); (stating loss to a sexual assault victim “would include the cost of necessary treatment and related expenses”).

(remanding case because record did not provide factual basis for restitution award).

The record must “provide a factual basis for the restitution award.”

(holding that remand for reconsideration on restitution award was appropriate when the record provided no factual basis for a $10,000 restitution order for first-degree criminal sexual conduct).

See, (“Restitution is intended to be compensatory, not punitive.”); State v. Maidi (stating primary purpose of restitution is to compensate victim); (“ ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss”).

See, (“[T]he word ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss.

3 (order for restitution does not bar any civil action by victim); (record of economic loss is required before district court may order restitution); (remanding for reconsideration of $10,000 restitution judgment for evidence of economic loss).