Restitution In Burglary Case In Arizona
In State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27, 39 P.3d 1131 (2002), the court explained that a burglar who breaks a window can be ordered to pay restitution for the costs of the broken window, even when damaging the building is not an element of burglary.
And burglary does not include as an element that the crime be committed against a specific person. See A.R.S. 13-1506 through 13-1508.
In Wilkinson, the Arizona Supreme Court focused on the apparent tension in 13-105(14), which authorizes restitution for losses which would not have been incurred "but for" the criminal offense, but expressly precludes restitution for "consequential damages."
The court found restitution must be:
(1) based on economic loss that;
(2) would not have occurred but for the criminal act. the court concluded that, additionally, the statutory scheme imposes a third requirement: the criminal conduct must directly cause the economic loss.
If the loss results from the concurrence of some causal event other than the defendant's criminal conduct, the loss is indirect and consequential and cannot qualify for restitution under Arizona's statutes. . . . We hold, therefore, that the statutes direct a court to award restitution for those damages that flow directly from the defendant's criminal conduct, without the intervention of additional causative factors. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27, P7, 39 P.3d 1131, 1133.