Cap on victim restitution ruled unconstitutional
PHOENIX -- State lawmakers cannot limit how much errant drivers have to pay the people they kill or injure, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.
The judges voided a law first enacted in 2006 which requires those who are convicted of a traffic offense that causes serious physical injury or death to pay restitution but limited that payment to no more than $10,000. Judge Lawrence Winthrop, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that limit runs afoul of the Victims’ Bill of Rights.
Lawmakers last year increased that cap to $100,000. But the court, by its ruling, concluded that any specific dollar limit set by the Legislature, no matter how high, would be unconstitutional.
The case involves Vivek Patel who was convicted of failing to yield when turning left, resulting in a crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone else. That also made Patel guilty of violating a separate law that makes it a criminal offense to break certain traffic laws if it results in an accident that injures or kills someone else.
That, in turn, triggered the Victims’ Bill of Rights, a 1990 voter-approved amendment to the Arizona Constitution. It entitles victims to seek “prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim’s loss or injury.’’
On behalf of the victim, who was not identified in the ruling, the Phoenix city prosecutor sought restitution of $61,192, which the municipal judge awarded.
That decision, however, was overturned by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Patricia Starr who said that compensation is limited by the $10,000 cap which was in effect at the time of the accident. She accepted Patel’s argument that the language only ensures “prompt’’ compensation, contending that if voters had intended to require “full’’ restitution to victims they would have said so.
Winthrop acknowledged that the constitutional provision does not define “restitution.’’