Justices Uphold Ordering Thief to Compensate Victims

A thief can be ordered to compensate a victim for stolen goods even if the victim was not physically or emotionally injured, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 5-2 ruling gives victims of property crimes the right to seek millions of dollars each year from people who steal from them, providing a potentially strong weapon against white-collar criminals.

“Now crime will not pay for people who commit property crimes as well as violent crimes,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Sharon Rosen Leib.

The ruling stems from an appeal by Marc Edward Broussard, who was convicted in Mendocino County of theft and receiving stolen property and was ordered by a judge in 1991 to pay $5,545 to his three victims. The judge also sentenced Broussard to two years and eight months in prison.

Broussard, who has served his sentence, appealed on the grounds that state law says victims must be compensated only if they have suffered physical or emotional injury.

The law resulted from Proposition 8, passed by voters in 1982 to reform the state’s criminal justice system. The initiative amended the state Constitution to require passage of legislation compelling criminals to pay their victims restitution.

Subsequent bills passed to implement the initiative left the term victim ambiguous.

Broussard’s attorney argued that the only definition of victim in state statutes refers to people who have been physically or emotionally injured. Because Broussard’s crime was nonviolent, his attorney said, he should not be required to pay $5,545.

The Court of Appeal rejected that contention, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

In its opinion, the majority of the high court said the Legislature intended that victims of nonviolent crime be allowed compensation even if the wording in the statute was not precise.