State v. Allison

999 N.W.2d 835

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Henry Albert ALLISON, Jr., Appellant.

A22-0793

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: January 10, 2024

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Minnesota Statutes section 611A.01(b) (2022) creates a singular class of victims that includes the direct victims of a crime and, if the direct victim is a minor, those family members of the minor who incur a personal loss or harm as a direct result of the crime. This singular class of victims has a right to receive restitution under Minnesota Statutes section 611A.04, subdivision 1(a) (2022).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion when awarding the victim mother restitution for the personal losses that followed naturally as a consequence of the crime committed against her minor child.

Court of Appeals

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Matthew P. Franzese, Traverse County Attorney, Wheaton, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael McLaughlin, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

Travis J. Smith, Murray County Attorney, William C. Lundy, Assistant Murray County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota; and Jeffrey Wald, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

OPINION

McKEIG, Justice.

Appellant Henry Albert Allison, Jr. pleaded guilty to three offenses related to pornographic photographs he had taken of a child. As part of the plea negotiation, Allison did not agree to pay restitution. Following a contested restitution hearing, the district court ordered Allison to pay restitution for the therapy costs and lost wages incurred by the child’s mother.¹ The court of appeals affirmed the order requiring Allison to pay restitution for the personal losses incurred by the child’s mother. We granted his petition for review.

In his brief to our court, Allison acknowledges that Minn. Stat.§ 611A.01(b) (2022) includes a child victim’s family members in its definition of "victim," but asserts that such victims are in a secondary class of victims who simply step into the shoes of the child victim for the limited purpose of exercising the duties they owe to the child. Based on that assertion, Allison argues the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution for the lost wages and therapy costs incurred by the child’s mother. In contrast, the State argues that, under section 611A.01, family members of the direct victim of the crime are part of a singular class of victims because the statute recognizes that "when a child suffers, their parents suffer as well."² Because we conclude that a person who incurs a personal loss or harm as a direct result of the crime being committed against a minor family member is a victim for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b), with a right to receive restitution under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (2022), and because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the victim mother restitution for the personal losses that followed naturally as a consequence of the crime committed against her minor child, we affirm.

FACTS

On July 10, 2020, Allison took pornographic photographs of his ex-girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter, A.G., while she slept. These photographs included one showing Allison’s hand pulling aside A.G.’s underwear to expose her vagina, and a similar photograph with A.G.’s underwear in place and Allison’s exposed, erect penis in the frame. The photos were discovered by a third party and turned over to police.

In September 2020, the State charged Allison with second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2020), two counts of use of a minor in a sexual performance under Minn. Stat. § 617.246, subd. 2(a) (2020), possession of child pornography under Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2020), and criminal sexual predatory conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.3453, subd. 1 (2022). In October 2020, Allison pleaded guilty to the charges of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of use of a minor in a sexual performance, and possession of child pornography; the two remaining counts were dismissed. Allison did not agree to pay restitution as part of the plea negotiation.³

At the February 2021 sentencing hearing, A.G.’s mother requested restitution for financial losses resulting from her therapy costs and lost wages.

A contested restitution hearing was held in August 2021, where A.G.’s mother testified that following the offense, A.G. had exhibited behavioral changes. These changes included that "[A.G.] does not want assistance with washing herself or changing whatsoever" and that A.G. does not "want anyone else in the room even her younger sister when she is changing." Before the offenses, A.G. had "absolutely no problem with" her mother’s assistance changing or bathing.

A.G.’s mother stated that she was "unable to be away from either of [her] children or allow anyone to care for them" because she was "afraid someone was going to hurt them if [she] was not there … the fears were taking over so that [she] could not do anything that needs to happen in everyday life." A.G.’s mother explained that as a result of this emotional trauma, she was unable to work her full-time job for four months following the discovery of Allison’s offenses. She confirmed that there were no reasons outside of what happened to her daughter that caused the disruption in employment or the need for mental health assistance. She also provided copies of all related medical and therapy bills. A.G.’s mother’s victim impact statement had also emphasized that the "stress and uncertainty" resulting from Allison’s offenses "brought [her] personally to [her] breaking point," which led to a "week-long inpatient psychiatric stay followed by a six-week outpatient program."

After hearing the testimony and viewing the evidence, the district court ordered Allison to pay restitution for the therapy costs and lost wages incurred by A.G.’s mother. Allison appealed the restitution awarded to A.G.’s mother. The court of appeals upheld the restitution award for the lost wages and therapy costs incurred by A.G.’s mother because her testimony established that Allison’s offenses caused her financial losses stemming from therapy costs and lost wages. State v. Allison, No. A22-0793, 2023 WL 125854, at *3 (Minn. App. Jan. 9, 2023).

We granted Allison’s petition for further review.

ANALYSIS

In his appeal, Allison claims that the district court abused its discretion when awarding restitution for the lost wages and therapy costs incurred by A.G.’s mother. Allison makes two arguments in his brief to support this theory. First, he argues that Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b) creates a primary and a secondary class of victims for purposes of restitution and that a child victim’s family members—as secondary victims—are only eligible for restitution for losses suffered directly by the child. Second, he argues that the type of personal losses incurred by A.G.’s mother were not the direct result of his offenses, and those losses are therefore ineligible for restitution. We address each argument in turn.

I.

[1] We first consider whether Minnesota’s restitution statutes create two distinct classes of victims. "Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo." State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015).

[2, 3] "The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022); see also State v. Powers, 962 N.W.2d 853, 858 (Minn. 2021) . "The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language is ambiguous." State v. Stay, 935 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Minn. 2019). The language of a statute is ambiguous if it is "subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn. 2007).

[4–6] In determining whether language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, "we consider the canons of interpretation listed in Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2014)." Riggs, 865 N.W.2d at 682. "One relevant canon provides that ‘words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.’ " Shefa v. Ellison, 968 N.W.2d 818, 825 (Minn. 2022) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020)). In addition, the canon of word association directs that "when context suggests that a group of words have something in common, each word should be ascribed a meaning that is consistent with its accompanying words." State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 485 (Minn. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432, 440–42 (Minn. 2017). Finally, the canon against surplusage dictates that we "avoid interpretations that would render a word or phrase superfluous, void, or insignificant." State v. Thompson, 950 N.W.2d 65, 69 (Minn. 2020). If a statute is ambiguous, "we may apply the canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity." Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d at 435.

With these canons of construction in mind, we turn our attention to the relevant statutory language, which reads:

"Victim" means a natural person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime, including a good faith effort to prevent a crime, and for purposes of sections 611A.04 and 611A.045, also includes (1) a corporation that incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime, (2) a government entity that incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime, and (3) any other entity authorized to receive restitution under section 609.10 or 609.125. The term "victim" includes the family members, guardian, conservator, or custodian of a minor, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased person.

Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b) (emphasis added).

Allison argues that the shared characteristic of the persons listed in the language italicized above is that they have a duty to protect the interests of the dependent individual....