victim compensation claim in Colorado

2020Laws 147 ; see also People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66, ¶ 33 (noting that a statute that is silent on whether it applies prospectively or retroactively is presumed to apply prospectively unless an exception applies). ¶ 26 We therefore apply Bohn, ¶ 19, which provided that “where a [victim compensation board] has paid a victim compensation claim, the prosecution still must show by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . the underlying loss was proximately caused by the defendant.” For our purposes, “[p]roximate cause . . . is defined as a cause which in natural and probable sequence produced

2020See § 18-1.3- 602(4)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 2019 (defining “victim” to include “[a]ny victim compensation board that has paid a victim compensation claim”); see also People v. Rivera, 250 P.3d 1272, 1275 (Colo. App. 2010) (“The restitution statute provides that restitution may be ordered to 6 any victim compensation board that has paid a victim compensation claim.”).

2015See People in Interest of K.M. , 232 P.3d 310, 312 (Colo. App. 2010) (the fact of payment by the CVCB does not in itself establish the right to restitution); People v. Rivera , 250 P.3d 1272, 1274-75 (Colo. App. 2010) (affirming restitution order in part because the CVCB paid the claim). ¶19 Instead, where a CVCB has paid a victim compensation claim, the prosecution still must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the CVCB’s payment was based on an underlying loss suffered by the crime victim and that the underlying loss was proximately caused by the defendant.

2015See People in Interest of K.M., 232 P.3d 310, 312 (Colo. App. 2010) (the fact of payment by the CVCB does not in itself establish the right to restitution); People v. Rivera, 250 P.3d 1272, 1274-75 (Colo. App. 2010) (affirming restitution order in part because the CVCB paid the claim). ¶ 19 Instead, where a CVCB has paid a victim compensation claim, the prosecution still must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the CVCB’s payment was based on an underlying loss suffered by the crime victim and that the underlying loss was proximately caused by the defendant.

2026“The purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, and the Restitution Act is to be ‘liberally construed’ to accomplish that purpose.” People v. Stone, 2020 COA 24, ¶ 5 (citation omitted). 1 Pertinent to this case, a “victim” can include “[a]ny [CVCB] that has paid a victim compensation claim” for compensable losses, such as funeral expenses and mental health counseling. § 18-1.3-602(4)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 2025; § 24-4.1-109(1)(e), (g), C.R.S. 2025. ¶4 In restitution proceedings, “the prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only the [amount of the] victi

2026The prosecution had identified the CVCB as the victim, and the restitution statute provides that “victim” means “[a]ny victim compensation board that has paid a victim compensation claim.” § 18-1.3-602(4)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 2025; see also People v. Stone, 2020 COA 24, ¶ 16 (“So, under [the restitution] statute, the board was 6 the victim.”).

2024“A fact is established by a preponderance of the evidence when, upon consideration of all the evidence, the existence of that fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366, 370 (Colo. 1991).

2024“A fact is established by a preponderance of the evidence when, upon consideration of all the evidence, the existence of that fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366, 370 (Colo. 1991).

2024As relevant here, a “victim” includes, but isn’t limited to, “[a]ny victim compensation board that has paid a victim compensation claim.” § 18-1.3-602(4)(a)(IV). ¶ 14 The prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence “the amount of restitution owed and, generally, that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the victim’s loss.” Henry, ¶ 15; see People v. Barbre, 2018 COA 123 , 5 ¶ 30.

2024As relevant here, a “victim” includes, but isn’t limited to, “[a]ny victim compensation board that has paid a victim compensation claim.” § 18-1.3-602(4)(a)(IV). ¶ 14 The prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence “the amount of restitution owed and, generally, that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the victim’s loss.” Henry, ¶ 15; see People v. Barbre, 2018 COA 123 , 5 ¶ 30.

2026“The purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, and the Restitution Act is to be ‘liberally construed’ to accomplish that purpose.” People v. Stone, 2020 COA 24, ¶ 5 (citation omitted). 1 Pertinent to this case, a “victim” can include “[a]ny [CVCB] that has paid a victim compensation claim” for compensable losses, such as funeral expenses and mental health counseling. § 18-1.3-602(4)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 2025; § 24-4.1-109(1)(e), (g), C.R.S. 2025. ¶4 In restitution proceedings, “the prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only the [amount of the] victi

2026Therefore, “[i]f a CVCB awards compensation to a victim or other qualifying person, the CVCB is eligible to seek and obtain restitution from a defendant in [a] criminal proceeding.” People v. Martinez-Chavez, 2020 COA 39, ¶ 13 . ¶ 49 “The prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct proximately caused the victim’s loss and the amount of that loss.” People v. Fregosi, 2024 COA 6, ¶ 44 .

2026Therefore, “[i]f a CVCB awards compensation to a victim or other qualifying person, the CVCB is eligible to seek and obtain restitution from a defendant in [a] criminal proceeding.” People v. Martinez-Chavez, 2020 COA 39, ¶ 13 . ¶ 49 “The prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s conduct proximately caused the victim’s loss and the amount of that loss.” People v. Fregosi, 2024 COA 6, ¶ 44 .

2025Therefore, “[i]f a CVCB awards compensation to a victim or other qualifying person, the CVCB is eligible to seek and obtain restitution from a defendant in [a] criminal proceeding.” People v. Fregosi, 2024 COA 6, ¶ 43 (citation omitted). ¶ 14 In a restitution proceeding, the prosecution bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the victim’s losses and that the victim’s losses were proximately caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct.

2020Laws 147 ; see also People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66, ¶ 33 (noting that a statute that is silent on whether it applies prospectively or retroactively is presumed to apply prospectively unless an exception applies). ¶ 26 We therefore apply Bohn, ¶ 19, which provided that “where a [victim compensation board] has paid a victim compensation claim, the prosecution still must show by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . the underlying loss was proximately caused by the defendant.” For our purposes, “[p]roximate cause . . . is defined as a cause which in natural and probable sequence produced