CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Holly Merrill
In Groom v. State, 551 P.3d 567 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was not violated when a judge determined the amount of restitution he owed. (Id. at 574). Groom was convicted of workers’ compensation fraud alongside a doctor who had assisted him in submitting false claims of reimbursement for medical treatment. (Id. at 569). Pursuant to A.S. § 12.55.045, which gives the trial court authority to determine restitution, the judge found that actual damages totaled $259,881.12 and issued a restitution order in that amount. (Id. at 570). On appeal, Groom argued that restitution should have been decided by a jury. (Id.). The court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey, a Supreme Court case holding that “the right to a jury trial . . . extends to [the] determination of any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” does not apply to restitution orders. (Id. at 573). It reasoned that because Alaska’s restitution statute is “indeterminate” since it does not set maximum penalties but rather authorizes an amount up to the victim’s total losses, a judge’s determination of actual damages does not increase either the statutory maximum or minimum penalty. (Id.) The court further held that the Alaska Constitution was not violated because Groom provided no evidence that it provides a more robust jury trial right than the Federal Constitution. (Id. at 575). Finally, the court held that it was not error for the trial court to require Groom to reimburse the State for all of its losses, instead of apportioning liability between Groom and his co-defendant. (Id. at 575). Consequently, the court affirmed the superior court’s restitution judgment. (Id. at 576).
