Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

618 So. 2d 784

Catoe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 21, 1993

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-05-21

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2000

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution includes the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party's estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party's next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense. Family members do not fall within the statutory definition of”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 636 So. 2d 1367 - Gluesenkamp v. State

Relies on 564 So. 2d 480 - Cresswell v. State · 586 So. 2d 1177 - Ocasio v. State · 553 So. 2d 1258 - Eloshway v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-05-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COBB, Judge.

¶1On appeal, the defendant argues that he should not have been required to pay restitution to the victim’s family. We agree.

¶2Section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) states:

(c) The term “victim” as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution includes the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.

¶3The families of Catoe’s rape victims, none of whom are deceased, are not encompassed within the statutory language of section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). Therefore, we reverse the restitution order of the trial court to the extent it relates to the family members. See Ocasio v. State, 586 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Eloshway v. State, 553 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 486 (Fla.1990).

¶4REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, J., concurs.DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
/618/so2d/784 · .json · Public domain