State v. Forant

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[a]n order of restitution must relate directly to the damage caused by the defendant’s criminal act for which he was convicted”
• holding that State must demonstrate “causation between the defendant’s criminal act and the victim’s loss”
• holding that expenses incurred by domestic-assault victim to change locks and telephone number were “indirect costs” from the crime and therefore “not recoverable as restitution”
• holding that expenses incurred by domestic-assault victim to change locks and telephone number were “indirect costs” from crime and therefore “not recoverable as restitution”
• concluding that one reference to preponderance-of- the-evidence standard was not plain error where court three times references State’s burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
• holding that the restitution statute is “narrowly drawn”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).