In State v. Riggs, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided whether a trial court may reduce a crime victim’s restitution award when the victim was the initial aggressor. The restitution statute, Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, provides criteria that trial courts must apply when awarding restitution; however, the victim’s fault is not listed among the criteria. In Riggs, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045 establishes exclusive criteria that prohibits trial courts from considering any non-specified factors; as such, it prohibited consideration of the victim’s fault in determining a restitution award.
This Note first reviews the history of criminal restitution and provides a background for understanding Minnesota’s restitution law. It then discusses the facts of Riggs and examines the parties’ arguments and the court’s rationale for its decision. Next, it analyzes the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in the context of Minnesota’s case law on restitution and the court’s role in interpreting statutes. This Note suggests that the legislature, not the court, must weigh the policy choices in deciding whether Minnesota’s restitution law should incorporate the victim’s comparative fault, and it concludes that the court correctly interpreted the restitution statute and correctly declined to recognize comparative fault as an aspect of restitution determinations.