State v. C.A.E.

¶22 (dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. The issue of statutory interpretation in this case is a close call, with compelling arguments by both sides. I find no flaw in the majority’s holding that the plain language of RCW 13.40.020(22) limits the definition of “restitution” to money the victim has already paid to mitigate injuries that the *729juvenile defendant caused and, thus, must reimburse the victim. I disagree, however, that in using the passive voice and the past tense “incurred,” the legislature intended to prevent the trial court from considering already-identified expenses for…