Legal Opinion

State v. Dedonado

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 31, 2000No. 43956-1-IPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

When a criminal restitution hearing is held, the State must establish a causal connection between the crime and the victim’s claimed damages. The trial court ordered restitution in this case without requiring the State to prove that connection because the defendant did not object to the State’s restitution evidence before the restitution hearing was held. Because a defendant is not required to object to the State’s restitution evidence before the restitution hearing is held, we reverse the trial court’s restitution order.

I

Kim Dedonado pleaded guilty to the crime of taking motor vehicle…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  2. State v. DavisonWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. MarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984
  4. State v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992
  5. State v. KisorCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. TobinWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. HahnCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. State v. DennisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000

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

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

Powered by the Exa API