E.H. v. Lillia Hester, Lenda Hester, and Jason Conlee

Flagstaff, Arizona personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants seeking restitution.



As Jack's half-sister, Elise is a victim of the defendants' crimes and is therefore entitled to seek restitution under the Victims' Bill of Rights ("VBR"), which is enshrined in the Arizona Constitution. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(8) (providing that a crime victim has the right "[t]o receive prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim's loss or injury"); A.R.S. § 13-4401(19) (expanding the definition of "victim" to include a murder victim's sibling); E.H. v. Slayton ("E.H. I"), 245 Ariz. 331, 334 ¶ 10 (App. 2018) (recognizing Elise as a victim). Elise asked the superior court to order defendants to pay restitution for Jack's future lost wages in the amount of $3,322,880.20, "payable to [Jack's] estate." She asserted that as Jack's half-sister "and next closest relative who is not a criminal defendant in this case, [she] is the appropriate person to make this claim on behalf of [Jack's] estate."[2] To support her request, Elise submitted an expert's report regarding Jack's projected future lost earnings. She also asked that her counsel be permitted to participate in any contested restitution hearing.



The defendants each opposed Elise's claim on several grounds, including waiver, standing, and that future lost wages of a murdered child are not recoverable as restitution. Jason also argued that because he was convicted of endangerment, not murder, any future lost earnings did not result from his crime and therefore could not be recovered from him as restitution. Defendants submitted their own expert's report, estimating the present value of Jack's lost wages, minus consumption, as between $153,712 on the low end and $919,598 on the high end. Elise stated she would accept the defendants' high-end calculation.



After holding oral argument on Elise's request, the superior court agreed that Elise could assert victims' rights on Jack's behalf as well as her own. But it also found that a murdered child's future lost wages constitute consequential damages, which are not recoverable as restitution. See A.R.S. § 13-603(C) (requiring payment of restitution only for victims' "economic loss"); A.R.S. § 13-105(16) (excluding consequential damages from the definition of "economic loss"). It therefore denied Elise's request for restitution representing Jack's future lost wages.



* * *



Legal issue Are future lost wages of a murdered child recoverable as restitution?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. FUTURE LOST WAGES AS RESTITUTION. The case addresses whether future lost wages of a murdered child can be recovered as restitution under Arizona law, concluding that such losses are recoverable if they have a reasonable basis and are directly caused by the criminal act.



CRIMINAL LAW. VICTIMS' RIGHTS. The judgment discusses the application of the Arizona Constitution's Victims' Bill of Rights, which allows crime victims, including relatives of a murdered child, to seek restitution for economic losses directly resulting from the criminal conduct.



RESTITUTION LAW. ECONOMIC LOSSES. The court examines the definition of economic loss under Arizona statutes, determining that future lost wages can be included as economic losses eligible for restitution, provided they meet specific legal criteria laid out in precedent cases.

Key Phrases Future lost wages. Economic loss. Restitution claim. Victims' rights. Consequential damages.



* * *



MoreLaw's goal is to help people seeking legal assistance to find the best lawyers available to represent them in any county in the United States. Click the link above to see some lawyers available where this case was tried who might be available to represent you. Call 833-200-3094 if you need help finding a lawyer.

Reversed