Jamison v. Jarrett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that victim’s purchase of security system following burglary was not compensable, where restitution statute covered “damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime” (quotation omitted)
• finding that conviction of burglary was committed for defendant's sexual gratification where defendant broke into residences for the sole purpose of stealing women's lingerie to facilitate masturbation
• finding that conviction of burglary was committed for defendant’s sexual gratification where defendant broke into residences for the sole purpose of stealing women’s lingerie to facilitate masturbation
• concluding the under a statute authorizing restitution for “damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime,” the “purchase [of a security system] was an example of ‘tangential costs incurred as a result of a crime,’ not a cost caused by the crime” (citations omitted)
• no discernible market value for used personal lingerie stolen from victim’s home
• no discernible market value for used personal lingerie stolen from victim's home

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).