Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Wednesday, February 14, 2018


Page 1


Vandal May Be Ordered to Reimburse Victim For Cost of Home Security System—C.A.


By a MetNews Staff Writer


The Third District Court of Appeal yesterday affirmed an order that a man who vandalized a home pay  $5,796.79 for installation of a home security system there.

The defendant, Marlowe William Henderson, Jr., had pled no contest to stalking, vandalism, and disobeying a court order. His appeal was based solely on the portion of the restitution order relating to the security system, the total sum being $17,639.68.

He pointed to Penal Code §1202.4)f)(3)(J) which requires, as part of restitution, “[e]xpenses to install or increase residential security incurred related to a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, including, but not limited to, a home security device or system, or replacing or increasing the number of locks.”

Henderson argued that he could not be forced to pay for such a system because he did not commit a violent felony.

Justice Elena J. Duarte wrote the opinion affirming the order.

She said the provision Henderson points to “requires that where a defendant is convicted of a violent felony, the trial court shall include in the restitution award expenses reasonably incurred by a victim in installing a residential security system.” However, it “does not purport to preclude restitution for such installation under other circumstances; in fact, it says nothing about any restriction on restitution whatsoever.”

In light of this, introductory language of the statute applies, she said, quoting the words: “every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, all of the following....” Duarte added the emphasis.

She declared:

“Thus, where a victim incurs the economic loss of installing a security system as a direct result of a defendant’s conduct, the trial court may include that amount in a victim restitution award regardless of the crime of conviction.”

The case is People v. Henderson, 2018 S.O.S. 764.


Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company