Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided February 8, 2013No. 107,186Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGreen, J.

I concur fully in the holding of the majority that tire amount of restitution to an aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by a defendant’s crime is to be determined by a trial judge exercising his or her judicial discretion. Nevertheless, I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial judge properly applied his discretion in determining restitution in this matter.

In ordering restitution in this case, the trial judge explained that although JC Penney’s loss was less than the $1,168 it requested as restitution, he would order restitution in this amount because the parties had…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. HortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
  2. State v. HortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
  3. State v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API