Idaho v. Cunningham

Jeremy Cunningham appealed a district court’s award of restitution. In September 2014, a jury convicted Cunningham of possession of a controlled substance. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with one-and-one-half years fixed. Thereafter, the district court held a restitution hearing, where the State sought to recoup its prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The State requested $2,240, which reflects 16 hours of work billed at $140 per hour. Cunningham argued the hourly rate was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, but he offered no evidence or further arguments on his behalf. The district court awarded the State its requested prosecution costs, plus $100 “for lab fees under the Drug Donation Act.” The award totaled $2,340. Cunningham appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the award and remanded for further consistent proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that insufficient evidence supported the award because it was based only on the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review and concluded the restitution award was indeed not supported by evidence. “Restitution under section 37-2732(k) must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, and an award of restitution will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.” Here, the Court found that the State’s unsworn Statement of Costs did not rise to the level of “substantial evidence.” The Court held that unsworn representations, even by an officer of the court, do not constitute “substantial evidence” upon which restitution under section 37-2732(k) could be based. View "Idaho v. Cunningham" on Justia Law