State v. G.L.D.

The antimerger statute applies whenever there is a common victim and charge if there are repeated violations separated by enough time for the defendant to renounce his criminal intent. Additionally, evidence to prove market value for purposes of a theft charge may include evidence regarding replacement costs of the property. Finally, for purposes of restitution, the juvenile code references the criminal code and includes insurance companies as victims.

Youth appealed from the juvenile court's judgment that, if an adult, he committed acts that constitute one count of first-degree arson, one count of aggravated first-degree theft, and two counts of second-degree burglary (for theft and arson). Youth assigned as error the failure to merge the burglary counts, that the State failed to prove the value of stolen property was the required $10,000.00 or more for the theft count, and that insurance companies are not victims for purposes of restitution. The Court of Appeals found that the antimerger statute applied, because there was evidence that there was a sufficient pause in time between the first and second burglaries that youth could have renounced his criminal intent. The Court also found that, although the evidence in the juvenile court did not establish the exact market value of the property, the evidence presented was enough to conclude the property's value exceeded the required $10,000. Finally, the Court found that the juvenile code uses the definition of "victim" from the criminal code, which includes insurance companies. Affirmed.