Exercise 25
Tutorial on the crimes of stalking and harassment for New Mexico judges
In a stalking trial, the victim testifies to having to replace the glass in four windows in her home after the defendant scratched obscenities in them. The testimony revealed the victim did the replacement work herself, and she estimated the cost of materials was "about $250-300, or so…. [further stating] I didn't think to save any of the receipts and I paid cash." Following a bench trial, the magistrate judge finds the defendant guilty on four of the ten counts of stalking, with none of the guilty verdicts pertaining to the window vandalism.
Which of the following is the correct order of restitution?
- A. Having found the victim credible in her testimony, restitution of $275 for the actual damages related to the window repair.
- Answer A is incorrect. The issue is not whether the victim was credible in her testimony about the windows. Rather, as noted in State v. Madril, 105 N.M. 396 (Ct. App. 1987), awarding restitution to the victim is improper where the defendant was not convicted of the crime. Since the defendant was not found guilty on the counts related to the damage to the windows, any award of restitution related to the windows is improper. Please select another answer.
- B. No restitution given the lack of receipts for the required "adequate evidentiary foundation" to order restitution for actual damages.
- Answer B is incorrect. Restitution is not appropriate but for a reason other than the lack of receipts. Rather, as noted in State v. Madril, 105 N.M. 396 (Ct. App. 1987), awarding restitution to the victim is improper where the defendant was not convicted of the crime. Since the defendant was not found guilty on the counts related to the damage to the windows, any award of restitution related to the windows is improper. Please select another answer.
- C. No restitution given that the defendant was not found guilty for the stalking counts involving vandalism to the victim's windows.
- Answer C is correct! As noted in State v. Madril, 105 N.M. 396 (Ct. App. 1987), awarding restitution to the victim is improper where the defendant was not convicted of the crime. Since the defendant was not found guilty on the counts related to the windows, a restitution award related to the windows is improper.