Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Wash. App. 178

773 P.2d 420

State v. Barrett

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 24, 1989

Court of Appeals of Washington · decided 1989-04-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) In its dispositional order, the court shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the respondent. In addition, restitution may be ordered for loss or damage if the offender pleads guilty to a lesser offense or fewer offenses and agrees with the prosecutor's recommendation that the offender be required to pay restitution to a victim of an offense or offenses which, pursuant to a plea agreement, are not prosecuted. The payment of restitution shall be in addition to any punishment which is imposed pursuant to the other provisions of this chapter. The court may determine the amount, terms, and conditions of the restitution. Restitution may include the costs of counseling reasonably related to the offense.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 66 Wash. App. 791 - State v. Landrum

Applies WA 13 § 13.40.190 · WA 9A § 9A.56.070

Relies on 50 Wash. App. 888 - State v. Vinyard · 52 Wash. App. 413 - State v. Steward

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably State v. JP (2003), 124 Wash. 2d 789 - PUD DISTRICT NO. 1, KLICKITAT COUNTY v. International Insurance Co. (1994)

53 state decisions

320198919902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*179 Forrest, J.

¶1 Harland Barrett, a juvenile, pleaded guilty to the charge of taking a motor vehicle without permission in violation of RCW 9A.56.070. He appeals from the trial court's restitution order requiring him to pay $2,749. The sole issue for determination is whether there was a sufficient causal link between the crime committed by the appellant and the property damage to justify the restitution. We affirm.

¶2 RCW 9A.56.070(1), which prohibits taking a motor vehicle without permission, states:

[Ejvery person voluntarily riding in or upon said automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the same was unlawfully taken shall be equally guilty with the person taking or driving said automobile or motor vehicle and shall be deemed guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission.

¶3 A passenger voluntarily riding in an unlawfully taken vehicle, as Barrett was, violates the statute as fully as the driver. RCW 13.40.190(1), relating to restitution by juveniles, requires the respondent "to make restitution to any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the respondent" and makes all participants in the crime "jointly and severally responsible for the payment of restitution." Restitution statutes are to be liberally construed. 1

¶4 The damage to the car occurred while Barrett was a passenger. But for the unlawful taking, the damage would not have occurred. In State v. Steward, 52 Wn. App. 413, 760 P.2d 939 (1988), the court imposed restitution for damage which occurred after the defendant had abandoned the vehicle she had taken without permission. The causal connection between the crime charged and the damage incurred is even stronger in the instant case. We find the nexus between the crime charged and the victim's loss is sufficient to impose restitution.

¶5*180 Affirmed.

¶6 Webster and Pekelis, JJ., concur.

/54/washapp/178 · .json · Public domain