(a) In determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution to be ordered, the court may take into consideration all of the following:
(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that the manner or method of restitution will impose upon the victim or the defendant.
(2) The ability of the defendant to pay restitution on an installment basis or on other conditions to be fixed by the court.
(3) The anticipated rehabilitative effect on the defendant regarding the manner of restitution or the method of payment.
(4) Any burden or hardship upon the victim as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s criminal acts.
(5) The mental, physical, and financial well-being of the victim.
(b) When a defendant has been convicted of the following offenses after February 1, 2009, the court may consider the factors enumerated in subsection (a) and shall order restitution to be paid as follows:
(1) When a defendant has been convicted of a capital offense under subsection (a) of Section 13A-5-40, the court shall order restitution for an amount not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each conviction under subsection (a) of Section 13A-5-40.
(2) When a defendant has been convicted of rape in the first degree under Section 13A-6-61 and the person has one or more prior convictions under Section 13A-6-61, the court shall order restitution for an amount not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each conviction under Section 13A-6-61.
(c) Nothing in this section shall limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue or recover damages from the defendant in a civil action. Evidence that the defendant has paid, or has been ordered to pay, restitution pursuant to this section may not be introduced in any civil action arising out of the facts or events which were the basis for the restitution. However, the court shall credit any restitution paid by the defendant to a victim against any judgment in favor of the victim in the civil action.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-588, p. 928, §4; Act 2009-632, p. 1937, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
State v. Meeks, 415 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2018).
“The Model Sentencing and Corrections Act includes a model restitution statute that directs a court to consider "the financial resources and future ability of the offender to pay or perform" when ordering restitution. Model Sentencing and Corrections Act § 3-601, 10 U.”
Welcher v. State, 504 So. 2d 360 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “VI The appellant contends that the court's restitution order, requiring the appellant to pay $4,670 in restitution to the victim's mother, did not comply with §§ 15-18-68 and 15-18-69, Code of Alabama 1975.”
Ex Parte Fletcher, 849 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, a trial court must not only give effect to the incorporation of § 8-8-10 according to the clear terms of § 15-18-78, but it must also adhere to the provisions of § 15-18-68 and Rule 26.11 (discussed infra, in Part V), requiring that a restitution award be tailored…”
Moore v. State, 706 So. 2d 265 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
“Further guidance can be found in § 15-18-68, which provides: "In determining the manner, method or amount of restitution to be ordered the court may take into consideration the following: "(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that the manner…”
Dixon v. State, 920 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“Section 15-18-68(3), Ala.Code 1975, states that `[t]he anticipated rehabilitative effect on the defendant regarding the manner of restitution or the method of payment' is another important criterion for determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution.”
Culp v. State, 710 So. 2d 1357 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
“" Section 15-18-68, Ala.Code 1975 provides: "In determining the manner, method or amount of restitution to be ordered the court may take into consideration the following: "(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that the manner or method of…”
Bray v. Holley (In Re Bray), 12 B.R. 359 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1981).
“, particularly that section now codified as Section 15-18-67 which we quote with emphasis here: Section 15-18-68. Restitution hearings; Order of Restitution; Persons entitled to be heard when a defendant is convicted of a criminal activity or conduct which have resulted in…”
D.J.W. v. State, 705 So. 2d 521 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “argues that the juvenile court failed to apply § 15-18-68, Code of Alabama 1975, which provides that in determining the manner, method or amount of restitution, the court may consider the following: “(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that…”
W.D.J. v. State, 785 So. 2d 385 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).
“In fact, § 15-18-68, Ala.Code 1975, lists the following considerations for the sentencing judge in determining “the manner, method, or amount of restitution to be ordered”: “(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that the manner or method of…”
Jackson v. State, 435 So. 2d 235 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983).
““§ 15-18-68. Criteria for determining restitution.”
DJW v. State, 705 So. 2d 521 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “argues that the juvenile court failed to apply § 15-18-68, Code of Alabama 1975, which provides that in determining the manner, method or amount of restitution, the court may consider the following: "(1) The financial resources of the defendant and the victim and the burden that…”
— Ala. Code § 15-18-68(3) — 1 case
Dixon v. State, 920 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“Section 15-18-68(3), Ala.Code 1975, states that `[t]he anticipated rehabilitative effect on the defendant regarding the manner of restitution or the method of payment' is another important criterion for determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.