Background
Richard Wilterdink appealed a restitution order arising from a read-in domestic-abuse disorderly-conduct charge. He had sent an ex-girlfriend, identified as Jane, text messages containing repeated threats of violence or death. The circuit court found that the threats exacerbated Jane’s pre-existing migraines and formed part of a pattern of conduct that caused her to move away because she feared Wilterdink would kill her. Wilterdink did not challenge those causation findings on appeal.
Jane sought restitution for medical and moving expenses. She testified that $630 in payments reflected her out-of-pocket costs for migraine treatment, although her billing summary did not identify the services associated with each payment. She also testified that she paid a moving company close to $2,500 to move her household to another county, but she had lost the receipt during the nearly five years before the restitution hearing. The circuit court awarded $630 for medical expenses and $1,000 for moving expenses, plus statutory fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the $630 medical-expense award. Jane’s testimony linked the payments to migraine treatments, and the circuit court expressly found her credible. The billing summary’s lack of specificity and the timing of some payments did not make her testimony inherently incredible. Deferring to the circuit court’s credibility determination, the appellate court concluded that the award reflected a logical interpretation of the record.
The court reversed the $1,000 moving-expense award because the circuit court did not explain how it selected that figure. A victim’s credible, uncontroverted testimony may establish out-of-pocket expenses without receipts, and the circuit court had not found Jane’s testimony that she paid approximately $2,500 incredible. The court remanded for reconsideration, directing the circuit court either to expressly find that testimony incredible or to identify record-based reasons why $2,500 was unreasonable and explain the basis for any amount awarded.
Key Takeaways
- Credible victim testimony can support restitution for out-of-pocket expenses even when billing records lack detail or receipts are unavailable.
- Appellate courts generally defer to a circuit court’s credibility findings unless the testimony is inherently or patently incredible or conflicts with established facts.
- A restitution amount must be grounded in the record and adequately explained; a court may not select a reduced figure without showing how it arrived at that amount.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between evidentiary sufficiency and an adequately reasoned exercise of discretion. Although documentary proof is not invariably required, the circuit court must make clear findings and connect the restitution amount to evidence in the record.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores that credible testimony may prove actual expenses, while a challenge to restitution can succeed when the court chooses an unexplained compromise figure rather than assessing the evidence and articulating a record-based calculation.