CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)
Sam MacDuffie
In Skupa v. State, 520 P.3d 1184 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court held that restitution may be
imposed by a court upon a preponderance of the evidence and need not be found by a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1191). Skupa was a criminal defendant charged with seven counts in a
scheme to defraud her employer. (Id. at 1186). She waived her right to a jury trial and pled guilty
to one count of first–degree theft, a crime that involves theft of $25,000 or more. (Id. at 1186–87).
At her sentencing hearing, without a jury, the court ordered her to pay over $400,000 in restitution
based on facts found by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id. at 1186). Skupa argued on appeal
that since she had only pled guilty to a stealing $25,000 or more, the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution required any restitution beyond $25,000 to be based on facts found by
a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1187). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment. (Id.
at 1191). The court reasoned that the Alaska restitution statute uses an indeterminate model, which
allows courts to impose restitution up to the actual damages resulting from the actions for which
the defendant was convicted. (Id. at 1190–91). Because this model determines restitution based on
a jury’s finding of guilt, and does not increase punishment based on new facts, the facts underlying
restitution need not be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1190). Further, even if
the Sixth Amendment did require a jury determine the proper amount in restitution, Skupa waived
that right when she waived her right to jury trial. (Id.). Affirming the trial court’s sentence, the
court of appeals held that restitution may be imposed by a court upon a preponderance of the
evidence and need not be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at 1191).
