Legal Opinion

State v. Diane E. Stewart

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided September 1, 2017No. 2016-162PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.

¶ 1. This case requires us to consider whether a bank is entitled to restitution as a "direct victim" of a crime when it incurred financial harm by reimbursing an accountholder for funds it had previously drawn from the account to pay a check that turned out to be forged. Defendant, who was convicted of embezzling from her former employer, appeals the trial court's restitution order that required her to pay the bank the amount that she had embezzled, arguing that the bank is not a direct victim of the crime and therefore is not entitled to restitution. We affirm.

¶ 2. The relevant facts are as…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. ForantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
  2. Monreal v. Fleet BankNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. State v. HennenfentSupreme Court of Iowa · 1992
  4. State v. GortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
  5. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. Lucas DwightSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018
  2. State v. Lucas DwightSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API