State v. Islam

A retail seller of goods that have been stolen may recover, as restitution, the reasonable value of those goods on the market to which the seller would resort to replace those goods at the time and place of conversion, together with any additional losses that the state proves the victim sustained.

Defendant claims that restitution should be based on the value of the stolen goods based on the wholesale market price plus any lost profits the store can prove. A retail seller of goods that have been stolen may recover, as restitution, the reasonable value of those goods on the market to which the seller would resort to replace those goods at the time and place of conversion, together with any additional losses that the state proves the victim sustained. Restitution may be awarded when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that results in economic damages and the state has presented evidence of those damages. When there are multiple markets where the goods could be replaced the market to be used is the market where the seller would resort to replace the stolen goods, generally the wholesale market. A retail seller is required to prove its lost profits to ensure they do not recover more than just compensation for the loss. In this case the retail store failed to prove the lost profits. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to circuit court for further proceedings.