People v. Stanley , 405 P.3d 518 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS                                      2017COA121
    Court of Appeals No. 16CA1612
    Adams County District Court No. 15CR1433
    Honorable Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr., Judge
    The People of the State of Colorado,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Steven Robert Paul Stanley,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AFFIRMED AND CASE
    REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
    Division III
    Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE
    Booras, J., concurs
    Webb, J., specially concurs
    Announced September 7, 2017
    David J. Young, District Attorney, Cameron M. Munier, Senior Deputy District
    Attorney, Brighton, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Bendinelli Law Firm, PC, Mark G. Mayberry, Westminster, Colorado, for
    Defendant-Appellee
    ¶1    In this prosecution appeal of a restitution setoff, we must
    reconcile the dual policy interests underlying the restitution statute,
    § 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2016, of fully compensating a victim on the
    one hand and of precluding double recovery by the victim on the
    other.
    ¶2    The prosecution asks us to reverse the trial court’s order
    awarding the defendant, Steven Robert Paul Stanley, a $25,000
    setoff against restitution of $30,000, an amount paid to the victim
    by the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). The setoff
    arose from a policy-limits settlement between the victim and
    Stanley’s automobile insurance company. Despite uncontroverted
    evidence of this settlement, the prosecution argues that Stanley
    failed to sufficiently prove entitlement to a setoff because he did not
    show that the settlement proceeds were “earmarked” for the same
    expenses reimbursed by the CVCP, leaving open the possibility that
    the victim used the proceeds for losses not compensated by the
    CVCP.
    ¶3    Because the level of specificity for apportioning urged by the
    prosecution would render meeting a defendant’s burden of proving
    a setoff under § 18-1.3-603(3) and (8)(c)(I) impractical — and in
    1
    some cases impossible — we conclude that a defendant sufficiently
    meets his or her burden of going forward to invoke the trial court’s
    discretion to award a setoff by showing that the settlement
    included one or more categories of loss (expenses) paid by the CVCP
    and covered by the restitution order.
    ¶4    Thus, we affirm in part the trial court’s ruling on
    apportionment. However, because the victim may have used some
    or all of the settlement proceeds for losses not compensated by the
    CVCP, we remand the case to permit the prosecution to respond by
    showing that the victim used or allocated settlement proceeds for
    losses proximately caused by Stanley’s criminal conduct but which
    were not paid by the CVCP and covered by the restitution order.
    This procedure gives effect to the restitution statute’s legislative
    intent “to make full restitution” to victims for their losses. § 18-1.3-
    601(1)(b), C.R.S. 2016. If the prosecution makes such a showing,
    the trial court should amend its restitution order by reducing the
    amount of the setoff.
    I.     The Restitution Order
    ¶5    This case arises from a traffic accident that occurred on April
    11, 2015. On May 7, 2015, Stanley’s automobile insurer, Geico
    2
    Indemnity Co. (Geico), entered into a “Release in Full of All Claims”
    (the Release) with the victim and her husband. Under the
    settlement, Geico paid the victim $25,000 for all claims related to
    and stemming from the accident in exchange for a full and final
    release of all claims against Stanley and Geico. The Release
    released and forever discharged Stanley and Geico
    [f]rom any and every claim, demand, right or
    cause of action, of whatever kind or nature, on
    account of or in any way growing out of any
    and all personal injuries and consequences
    thereof, including, but not limited to, all
    causes of action preserved by the wrongful
    death statute applicable, any loss of services
    and consortium, any injuries which may exist
    but which at this time are unknown and
    unanticipated and which may develop at some
    time in the future, all unforeseen
    developments arising from known injuries, and
    any and all property damage resulting or to
    result from an accident that occurred on or
    about the 11th day of April, 2015 . . . .
    ¶6    On February 4, 2016, Stanley pleaded guilty to felony
    vehicular assault, driving under the influence, and careless driving.
    Under the plea agreement, the trial court deferred the entry of
    judgment and sentence on the felony for four years, and sentenced
    Stanley to four years of concurrent probation on the misdemeanor
    3
    convictions. The court gave the prosecution ninety days to submit
    a restitution request.
    ¶7    On May 3, 2016, the prosecution filed a motion to impose
    restitution and attached a report from the CVCP. It showed that
    the CVCP had paid the victim $30,000, the maximum amount
    allowable by statute, for pecuniary losses proximately caused by
    Stanley’s criminal conduct. See § 24-4.1-109(2)(b), C.R.S. 2016. It
    paid the victim $8048 for lost wages and $21,952 for medical
    expenses.1 The report stated that “[e]ach bill received by CVCP is
    verified to ensure that it is crime related; that no other funding
    source was responsible (insurance) and to verify the most up to
    date balance.”
    ¶8    Believing that the insurance Release and settlement satisfied
    his restitution obligation, Stanley never filed an objection to the
    prosecution’s motion for restitution. On June 14, 2016, the court
    granted the unopposed motion and ordered Stanley to pay the
    victim $30,000 in restitution. Later that same day, Stanley filed a
    1 The exact date of the CVCP’s payment to the victim is not clear
    from the record. The CVCP report contains a notation that it was
    printed on “2/9/2016” and was filed with the court on “May 3,
    2016.”
    4
    Motion for Reconsideration of the Restitution Order, explaining his
    misunderstanding and requesting a hearing and a setoff. The court
    granted Stanley’s hearing request.
    ¶9     At the hearing, the parties relied on two documents — the
    CVCP report evidencing the $30,000 payment and the Release
    evidencing the $25,000 settlement. Neither party presented any
    other evidence.
    ¶ 10   The prosecution argued that because the Release constituted
    an unapportioned settlement, Stanley bore the burden of proving
    that the settlement proceeds were intended to compensate the
    victim for the same lost wages and medical expenses compensated
    by the CVCP. Specifically, “[the Release] talks in no way about
    where this $25,000 is to be allocated. Is it supposed to go to
    medical or pay for the damages to the vehicle?” Relying on People v.
    Lassek, 
    122 P.3d 1029
     (Colo. App. 2005), the prosecution argued
    that the “entire amount could have simply gone to [nonpecuniary
    losses not covered by the restitution statute]” and asked the court
    to find that Stanley had not met his apportionment burden.
    ¶ 11   Stanley agreed that he bore the burden of establishing the
    existence of a setoff. He asserted that the Release “broadly
    5
    apportioned” the proceeds through the language stating an intent to
    compensate for “any and every claim” for loss of services, as
    relevant to wage loss, and for personal injuries and all
    consequences of them, as relevant to medical expenses. He
    reasoned that the settlement proceeds necessarily included the
    medical and lost wages compensation the victim received from the
    CVCP. He further argued that the CVCP was remiss in failing to
    offset restitution by the settlement amount under § 24-4.1-110(1),
    C.R.S. 2016.
    ¶ 12   The trial court held that $30,000 in restitution was
    reasonable, due, and owing. It further held that the Release’s broad
    language was “all encompassing and [that] it include[d] every type
    of claim imaginable and any type of injury imaginable.” It found the
    Release “contemplate[d] payment for the very same categories that
    are set forth in the prosecution’s restitution report,” and noted that
    these types of releases never apportioned proceeds to specific loss
    categories. Therefore, it awarded Stanley a $25,000 setoff against
    restitution and ordered him to pay the $5000 net amount.2
    2 Stanley does not cross-appeal the court’s findings concerning the
    reasonableness of the $30,000 restitution award.
    6
    II.    Analysis
    ¶ 13   Relying on Lassek and People in Interest of T.R., 
    860 P.2d 559
    (Colo. App. 1993), the prosecution urges us to reverse the court’s
    order, arguing that the Release is an unapportioned settlement that
    does not “earmark” the proceeds for the same expenses
    compensated by the CVCP, as required by these cases. While we
    acknowledge that Lassek and T.R. could be read to support this
    argument, for the reasons described below we conclude that these
    cases do not require the level of specificity urged by the
    prosecution.3
    A.     Standard of Review
    ¶ 14   We review a trial court’s restitution award for an abuse of
    discretion. People v. Sieck, 
    2014 COA 23
    , ¶ 5. A trial court abuses
    its discretion when it misconstrues or misapplies the law, 
    id.,
     or
    when its decision fixing the amount of restitution is not supported
    by the record, see People v. Rivera, 
    968 P.2d 1061
    , 1068 (Colo. App.
    1997). “We will not disturb the district court’s determination as to
    3 In any event, we are not bound by decisions of other divisions of
    this court. People v. Smoots, 
    2013 COA 152
    , ¶ 20, aff’d sub nom.
    Reyna-Abarca v. People, 
    2017 CO 15
    .
    7
    the proper amount of restitution if it is supported by the record.”
    People v. Bohn, 
    2015 COA 178
    , ¶ 8.
    ¶ 15   We review and interpret statutes de novo. People v.
    Padilla-Lopez, 
    2012 CO 49
    , ¶ 7. When construing statutes, we aim
    to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly.
    
    Id.
     We accord words and phrases their plain and ordinary
    meanings. 
    Id.
     “Where the language is clear, it is not necessary to
    resort to other tools of statutory construction.” Goodman v.
    Heritage Builders, Inc., 
    2017 CO 13
    , ¶ 7.
    B.    Applicable Law
    ¶ 16   As part of “[e]very order of conviction,” a trial court must order
    a defendant to pay restitution if the defendant’s conduct caused
    pecuniary loss to a victim. § 18-1.3-603(1); People v. Reyes, 
    166 P.3d 301
    , 302 (Colo. App. 2007). Restitution means “any pecuniary
    loss suffered by a victim . . . proximately caused by an offender’s
    conduct and that can be reasonably calculated and recompensed in
    money.” § 18-1.3-602(3)(a), C.R.S. 2016. The General Assembly
    has declared restitution to be a mechanism for rehabilitating
    offenders, deterring future criminality, and reducing the financial
    burden on and compensating victims and their families for their
    8
    losses. § 18-1.3-601(1)(c)-(g). The restitution statute must be
    liberally construed to accomplish these goals. § 18-1.3-601(2).
    ¶ 17   The court bases its restitution order on information provided
    by the prosecuting attorney. § 18-1.3-603(2). The prosecution
    bears the burden of proving the amount owed by a preponderance
    of the evidence, People v. Smith, 
    181 P.3d 324
    , 328 (Colo. App.
    2007), while the defendant bears the burden of proving any setoff.
    Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1035
    .
    ¶ 18   Compensable losses are defined in §§ 24-4.1-109(1) and (1.5),
    and include the following:
    (a) Reasonable medical and hospital expenses
    and expenses incurred for dentures,
    eyeglasses, hearing aids, or other prosthetic or
    medically necessary devices;
    (b) Loss of earnings;
    (c) Outpatient care;
    (d) Homemaker and home health services;
    (e) Burial expenses;
    (f) Loss of support to dependents;
    (g) Mental health counseling;
    (h) Household support; except that household
    support is only available to a dependent when:
    9
    (I) The offender is accused of committing the
    criminally injurious conduct that is the basis
    of the dependent’s claim under this article;
    (II) As a result of the criminal event, the
    offender vacated any home the offender shared
    with the dependent; and
    (III) The dependent provides verification of
    dependency on the offender at the time of the
    criminal event.
    (1.5)(a) Losses compensable under this part 1
    resulting from property damage include:
    (I)(A) Repair or replacement of property
    damaged as a result of a compensable crime;
    or
    (B) Payment of the deductible amount on a
    residential insurance policy;
    (II) Any modification to the victim’s residence
    that is necessary to ensure victim safety; and
    (III) The rekeying of a motor vehicle or other
    lock that is necessary to ensure the victim’s
    safety.
    Compensable losses do not include
    (a) Pain and suffering or property damage
    other than residential property damage or
    rekeying a lock pursuant to subparagraph (III)
    of paragraph (a) of subsection (1.5) of this
    section; or
    (b) Aggregate damages to the victim or to the
    dependents of a victim exceeding thirty
    thousand dollars.
    10
    § 24-4.1-109(2).
    ¶ 19     Additionally, if a crime victim compensation board provides
    assistance to a victim, “the amount of assistance provided and
    requested by the crime victim compensation board is presumed to
    be a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct and must be
    considered by the court in determining the amount of restitution
    ordered.” § 18-1.3-603(10)(a). The amount of assistance provided
    may be established by either (1) a list of the amount of money paid
    to each provider; or (2) a summary data reflecting what total
    payments were made for medical and dental expenses, funeral or
    burial expenses, mental health counseling, wage or support losses,
    or other expenses, if the identity or location would pose a threat to
    the safety or welfare of the victim. § 18-1.3-603(10)(b)(II).
    ¶ 20     The restitution statute also furthers a second interest — that
    of avoiding double recovery. As pertinent here, a trial court may
    decrease a restitution award if the defendant has otherwise
    compensated the victim or victims for “the pecuniary losses
    suffered.”4 § 18-1.3-603(3)(b)(II). Indeed, “[a]ny amount paid to a
    4   The General Assembly has defined restitution as
    11
    victim under an order of restitution shall be set off against any
    amount later recovered as compensatory damages by such victim in
    any federal or state civil proceeding.” § 18-1.3-603(6); People v.
    Maxich, 
    971 P.2d 268
    , 269 (Colo. App. 1998); see also § 18-1.3-
    603(8)(c)(I) (a court may not award restitution to a victim
    concerning a pecuniary loss for which the victim has received or is
    entitled to receive benefits or reimbursement under a policy of
    insurance or other indemnity agreement).
    ¶ 21   When a victim receives compensation from a civil settlement
    against a defendant, the defendant may request a setoff against
    any pecuniary loss suffered by a victim and
    includes but is not limited to all out-of-pocket
    expenses, interest, loss of use of money,
    anticipated future expenses, rewards paid by
    victims, money advanced by law enforcement
    agencies, money advanced by a governmental
    agency for a service animal, adjustment
    expenses, and other losses or injuries
    proximately caused by an offender’s conduct
    and that can be reasonably calculated and
    recompensed in money. “Restitution” does not
    include damages for physical or mental pain
    and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of
    enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, or
    punitive damages.
    § 18-1.3-602(3)(a), C.R.S. 2016.
    12
    restitution “to the extent of any money actually paid to the victim
    for the same damages.” Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1034
    . Moreover,
    “[w]here a civil claim precedes the restitution proceeding, the court
    must first determine the total amount of the victim’s pecuniary
    damages subject to restitution and then subtract ‘any proceeds
    attributable to those damages received by the victim’ from the civil
    claim.” 
    Id. at 1034-35
     (quoting People v. Acosta, 
    860 P.2d 1376
    ,
    1382 (Colo. App. 1993)).
    ¶ 22   Still, for purposes of a setoff, the court cannot allocate
    proceeds from an unapportioned civil settlement agreement without
    “specific evidence that the settlement included particular categories
    of loss.” Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1035
    . This is so because, in civil
    cases, victims may recover both pecuniary losses covered by the
    restitution statute and other damages specifically excluded under
    the restitution statute, such as loss of future earnings and
    nonresidential property damages, as well as nonpecuniary damages
    for pain and suffering, inconvenience, or impairment of the quality
    of life. See id.; see also § 13-21-102.5, C.R.S. 2016; § 18-1.3-
    602(3)(a); § 24-4.1-109(2).
    13
    ¶ 23   When applying a setoff, the trial court must make specific
    findings on the apportionment of actual damages for which the
    defendant compensated the victim and set off that amount against
    any restitution ordered. T.R., 860 P.2d at 564. Thus, in the
    absence of evidence demonstrating that a civil settlement was
    intended to be allocated in a particular way, a trial court need not
    set off any amounts from that settlement against the ordered
    restitution. Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1035
    .
    C.    Application
    ¶ 24   We begin with T.R. and Lassek, which we find informative but
    distinguishable from this case. In T.R., the victim’s estate and
    surviving spouse brought a civil action against T.R. that was
    defended by T.R.’s automobile liability insurer. T.R., 860 P.2d at
    564. The parties reached a settlement for the policy limit of
    $100,000 in exchange for a waiver of any further claims against
    T.R. Id. The settlement agreement did not designate the proceeds
    as being for any particular purpose. Id. Even so, the juvenile court
    apportioned some of the settlement proceeds to expenses incurred
    by the victim’s estate as a restitution setoff. Id. A division of this
    court reversed T.R.’s convictions on unrelated grounds and
    14
    instructed that if restitution were to arise on remand, the trial court
    should “make specific findings on the apportionment of actual
    damages that the victim’s estate was compensated for under the
    civil settlement agreement and to set off that amount against any
    restitution ordered.” Id.
    ¶ 25   Similarly, in Lassek, the defendant pleaded guilty to charges
    related to a fatal traffic accident. Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1031
    . The
    trial court ordered restitution that included costs for burial
    expenses and travel and lodging expenses incurred by the victim’s
    parents in attending the memorial service. 
    Id. at 1034
    . Lassek
    sought a $50,000 setoff against restitution based on a settlement
    payment made by his automobile insurer to the victim’s family as
    part of a “Covenant Not to Execute” signed by the victim’s parents.
    
    Id. at 1035
    . But the Covenant “did not identify any particular
    losses covered by the payment.” 
    Id.
    ¶ 26   The trial court concluded it could not make a setoff because it
    could not determine the amount of the settlement proceeds which
    compensated the parents for the burial and travel expenses. 
    Id.
     A
    division of this court affirmed the trial court’s order, ruling the
    settlement proceeds “unapportioned” because the Covenant did not
    15
    identify any expenses covered by the restitution order. 
    Id.
     It
    further concluded that the defendant bore the burden of
    establishing apportionment. 
    Id.
    ¶ 27   In contrast to both of these cases, where the settlement
    agreements did not identify particular categories of losses, the plain
    language of the Release identifies “any and every claim, demand,
    right or cause of action . . . any and all personal injuries and
    consequences thereof . . . any loss of services . . . and any and all
    property damage resulting or to result from an accident” as
    encompassed within the settlement. (Emphasis added.) A
    settlement agreement is a contract. See H. W. Houston Constr. Co.
    v. Dist. Court, 
    632 P.2d 563
    , 565 (Colo. 1981). The primary goal of
    contract interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the
    parties. Ad Two, Inc. v. City & Cty. of Denver, 
    9 P.3d 373
    , 376
    (Colo. 2000). We discern the parties’ intent by looking to the plain
    and generally accepted meaning of the contractual
    language. Copper Mountain, Inc. v. Indus. Sys., Inc., 
    208 P.3d 692
    ,
    697 (Colo. 2009). The meaning of a contract is found by examining
    the entire instrument and not by viewing clauses or phrases in
    isolation. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Fisher, 
    2013 CO 5
    , ¶ 9.
    16
    ¶ 28   We conclude, therefore, that “personal injuries and the
    consequences thereof” include both physical and emotional harm
    arising from the costs of treatment for bodily injury (here, medical
    expenses for the victim’s injuries), and also from the several types of
    nonpecuniary damages recoverable by the victim in a civil claim
    based on those physical injuries, such as pain and suffering,
    inconvenience, and emotional distress. See Lassek, 
    122 P.3d at 1035
    . Similarly, we conclude that “loss of services” includes
    the lost wages compensated by the CVCP. For these reasons, we
    agree with the trial court that Stanley met his burden of going
    forward with evidence that the Release identified “particular losses
    covered by the [CVCP] payment.” 
    Id.
    ¶ 29   This conclusion does not end our analysis, however, because
    as argued by the prosecution, and as recognized by the division in
    Lassek, the victim “could allocate the entire settlement to
    noneconomic [i.e. noncompensable] damages.” 
    Id.
     Indeed, the
    language “any and every claim, demand, right or cause of action”
    and “property damage” is broad enough to include noncompensable
    losses, such as automobile damage, and pain and suffering related
    to the victim’s physical injuries.
    17
    ¶ 30   How then does a trial court give effect to § 18-1.3-603(3)(II)
    and the underlying policy of preventing double recovery expressed
    in § 18-1.3-603(6) while simultaneously giving effect to the statute’s
    policy of making the victim whole? None of our cases has answered
    this question.
    ¶ 31   We are guided by a related statute from the Colorado Crime
    Victim Compensation Act (Act).5 Section 24-4.1-110 of this Act,
    titled “Recovery from collateral source,” provides as follows:
    (1) The board shall deduct from compensation
    it awards under this part 1 any payments
    received by the applicant from the offender
    or from a person on behalf of the offender,
    from the United States or any state, or any
    subdivision or agency thereof, from a
    private source, or from an emergency award
    under this part 1 for injury or death
    compensable under this part 1, excluding
    death or pension benefits.
    (2) If compensation is awarded under this part
    1 and the person receiving it also receives a
    collateral sum under subsection (1) of this
    section which has not been deducted from
    it, he shall refund to the board the lesser of
    5 Similar to the restitution statute, the General Assembly intended
    this Act “to provide protection and assistance to victims and
    members of the immediate families of such victims by declaring and
    implementing the rights of such persons and by lessening the
    financial burden placed upon such victims due to the commission
    of crimes.” § 24-4.1-101, C.R.S. 2016.
    18
    the sums or the amount of compensation
    paid to him under this part 1 unless the
    aggregate of both sums does not exceed his
    losses. The fund shall be the payor of last
    resort.
    (3) If a defendant is ordered to pay restitution
    under article 18.5 of title 16, C.R.S., to a
    person who has received compensation
    awarded under this part 1, an amount
    equal to the compensation awarded shall be
    transmitted from such restitution to the
    board for allocation to the fund.
    ¶ 32   As relevant here, under subsection (1), if the board knows
    about a collateral payment to the victim for a compensable damage,
    it must deduct that amount before issuing its award. Subsection
    (2) requires a person compensated by the CVCP (the victim here) to
    refund the CVCP for compensation paid to that person by the
    offender or by another on behalf of the offender. That is, if the
    victim receives a “collateral sum” after the award has already been
    made by the board, then the victim must refund any duplicative
    amounts, which necessarily could only be compensable damages.
    ¶ 33   In order to calculate the amount of any refund owed, a victim
    would necessarily need to determine whether the compensation he
    or she received from the defendant was used to reimburse the same
    19
    losses and expenses compensated by the CVCP and then to provide
    such information to the CVCP. Our General Assembly has deemed
    this information “confidential” under § 24-4.1-107.5, C.R.S. 2016,
    and, therefore, inaccessible to a defendant except in a narrow
    circumstance not applicable here.6
    ¶ 34   Because the information needed to determine whether the
    victim has been fully compensated or has received any double
    recovery is known only by the victim, we conclude that once a
    defendant has shown that a civil settlement includes the same
    categories of losses or expenses as compensated by the CVCP and
    awarded as restitution, the defendant has met his or her burden of
    going forward, and the prosecution may then rebut the inference
    that a double recovery has occurred. The prosecution can do so by
    showing that the victim used or allocated the settlement proceeds
    for losses proximately caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct
    but which were not paid by the CVCP and covered by the restitution
    order. In sum, we affirm the trial court’s finding that Stanley met
    6 Under § 24-4.1-107.5(3), C.R.S. 2016, a defendant may request an
    in camera review to rebut the presumption of causation, but only
    based on a defendant’s proffer of a nonspeculative evidentiary
    hypothesis.
    20
    his burden of proving a setoff and remand for further proceedings to
    allow the prosecution to show that the victim did not receive a
    double recovery from the insurance settlement proceeds and the
    CVCP payment. The trial court should adjust the restitution order
    in accordance with that additional evidence, subject to further
    appeal by either party.
    ¶ 35   Finally, because of our disposition, we need not address
    whether the CVCP properly considered the insurance settlement
    when compensating the victim for medical expenses and lost wages.
    III.   Conclusion
    ¶ 36   The order is affirmed and the case is remanded for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    JUDGE BOORAS concurs.
    JUDGE WEBB specially concurs.
    21
    JUDGE WEBB, specially concurring.
    ¶ 37   While I agree with the majority’s disposition, I write separately
    to air the possibility of a legislative solution.
    ¶ 38   On the one hand, a trial court may decrease a restitution
    award if a defendant has otherwise compensated a victim for the
    “pecuniary losses suffered.” § 18-1.3-603(3)(b)(II), C.R.S. 2016.
    But on the other, this phrase does not restrict the decrease based
    on overlap between that compensation and either losses
    compensable under the restitution statute or any specific item in
    the restitution award. Indeed, while section 18-1.3-603(6) applies
    to a setoff against a post-restitution civil judgment rather than
    against a restitution award, it too does not require any overlap
    between the items covered by a restitution award and the items
    “recovered as compensatory damages.” The breadth of the latter
    section could have significant consequences if the civil judgment
    included only noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, for
    which the restitution award could not have compensated the victim.
    ¶ 39   At the restitution hearing in this case, the trial court found,
    “You’ll never see a release that says X number of dollars goes to
    paying the Kaiser bill and X number of dollars goes to paying Auto
    22
    Nation for repairs nor will you see this is earmarked for or
    designated for medical expenses.” This finding raises the dilemma
    that, in many cases, the defendant may be unable to meet even the
    burden imposed by the majority.
    ¶ 40   True, the majority avoids this dilemma by focusing on
    language in the Release that corresponds to the two categories of
    loss identified by the victim compensation board. But that solution
    may be unavailable in many cases, just as it was unavailable in
    Lassek. And even here, the question is close because while the
    release expressly addresses “services,” it is silent as to “medical
    expenses.”1
    ¶ 41   To avoid further uncertainty, the General Assembly may wish
    to consider amending section 18-1.3-603(3)(b)(II) to clarify exactly
    what must be proven, and by whom, to invoke the trial court’s
    discretion to order a setoff under section 18-1.3-603(3), where a
    civil settlement predates a restitution hearing.
    1 This dilemma may be unique to settlements, because if a victim
    recovers a civil judgment, the jury may have apportioned damages
    among categories such as economic and noneconomic loss.
    23