§
Subdivision 1.Criteria.
(a) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of the restitution, shall consider the following factors:
(1) the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense; and
(2) the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant.
(b) If there is more than one victim of a crime, the court shall give priority to victims who are not governmental entities when ordering restitution.
§
Subd. 2.Presentence investigation.
The presentence investigation report made pursuant to section 609.115, subdivision 1, must contain information pertaining to the factors set forth in subdivision 1.
§
Subd. 2a.Payment structure.
The court shall include in every restitution order a provision requiring a payment schedule or structure. The court may assign the responsibility for developing the schedule or structure to the court administrator, a probation officer, or another designated person. The person who develops the payment schedule or structure shall consider relevant information supplied by the defendant. If the defendant is placed on supervised probation, the payment schedule or structure must be incorporated into the probation agreement and must provide that the obligation to pay restitution continues throughout the term of probation. If the defendant is not placed on probation, the structure or schedule must provide that the obligation to pay restitution begins no later than 60 days after the restitution order is issued.
§
Subd. 3.Dispute; evidentiary burden; procedures.
(a) At the sentencing, dispositional hearing, or hearing on the restitution request, the offender shall have the burden to produce evidence if the offender intends to challenge the amount of restitution or specific items of restitution or their dollar amounts. This burden of production must include a detailed sworn affidavit of the offender setting forth all challenges to the restitution or items of restitution, and specifying all reasons justifying dollar amounts of restitution which differ from the amounts requested by the victim or victims. The affidavit must be served on the prosecuting attorney and the court at least five business days before the hearing. A dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution must be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense and the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution is on the prosecution.
(b) An offender may challenge restitution, but must do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days of receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of sentencing, whichever is later. The hearing request must be made in writing and filed with the court administrator. A defendant may not challenge restitution after the 30-day time period has passed.
Notes of Decisions
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 145× “Because the victim’s role as the initial aggressor is not a factor set forth in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1, the district court erred by reducing the restitution award on this ground.”
State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 34× “With respect to restitution, the court held that Gaiovnik waived his right to challenge the restitution award because Gaiovnik did not challenge the restitution award within 30 days of sentencing, as required by Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2010).”
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota, 880 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 15× “motion was untimely under Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2014), because Evans failed to challenge the restitution award within 30 days of receiving written notice of the amount of restitution requested.”
State v. Maidi, 537 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 26× “Therefore, appellant argues, the sentencing court neglected to consider his ability to pay as required by Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1 (1994): The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of restitution, shall consider the following factors: (1) the…”
State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 26× “See Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (1992). The court acknowledged that the jury reached a different conclusion regarding the victims' losses, but reasoned that the district court judge's discretion in sentencing decisions was substantial: This case, however, deals with…”
State v. Willis, 898 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 38× “In this case we are asked to decide whether the Minnesota Rules of Evidence apply to restitution' hearings held under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2016).”
State v. Maddox, 825 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 24× “” Maddox timely challenged the restitution orders under Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b), which permits a defendant to challenge restitution at a restitution hearing.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 8× “The district court concluded that Andersen had been properly served with the restitution request and had failed to object to it within the time permitted by Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, Subd. 3(b). The court therefore ordered Andersen to pay the restitution requested by the Crime…”
State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 13× “Did appellant waive his right to challenge items in the restitution award by failing to comply with the affidavit requirement of Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (1996)? 2.”
State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Restitution Caldwell argues that the district court violated his constitutional rights when it imposed restitution under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045 (2010). Specifically, Caldwell argues that the court did not determine, as required by Minn.”
State v. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd 3(a) (2010). The amount of restitution, when disputed, must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Minn. Stat. § 611A.045(a)(2) — 1 case
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.