Legal Opinion

People v. Hamilton

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 2003No. B167189PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal concerns a victim restitution obligation under former Penal Code section 1202.4. The principal issues presented are whether either of the following may be offset against a criminal defendant’s victim restitution obligation: (1) payments to the victim by the victim’s insurance carrier; or (2) payments to the victim by the insurer of defendant’s mother to settle the victim’s civil action against the mother and defendant. We hold that neither payment may offset the defendant’s restitution obligation.

BACKGROUND

Respondent Eric Duane Hamilton (Hamilton) shot…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. People v. BernalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. People v. DouglasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. People v. HoveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. JenningsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. People v. AkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. P. v. Petronella CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. Saint-AmansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. People v. Tommy A.California Court of Appeal · 2005

17 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