Background
S.P. was charged with strangulation and assault in Dakota County. Although the charges were serious, defense attorney Ryan Pacyga successfully negotiated the dismissal of all charges related to the alleged victim. Despite the dismissal, the State filed a motion seeking restitution of approximately $1,000, claiming that the alleged victim had incurred damages during the alleged assault.
Challenge
Even though the charges against S.P. were dropped, the State sought to recover damages on behalf of the alleged victim through a restitution request. The challenge for Ryan Pacyga was to oppose the restitution claim, arguing that the alleged victim was not entitled to restitution since the charges were dismissed and no conviction was made.
Defense Strategy
Ryan Pacyga built his argument on the legal definition of a “victim” under the restitution statute. He asserted that because the charges involving the alleged victim were dismissed, she did not meet the criteria to be considered a “victim” under the law. Additionally, since S.P. was not convicted of any crime involving the alleged victim, Pacyga argued that a restitution hearing was not the proper venue for seeking financial compensation for damages. He emphasized that the alleged victim would need to pursue any claim for damages in civil court rather than through restitution in a criminal case.
Outcome
Following a restitution hearing, the judge ruled in Ryan Pacyga’s favor, denying the State’s request for restitution. The judge agreed with Pacyga’s argument, concluding that since the charges were dismissed, the alleged victim was not a “victim” under the restitution statute, and that restitution was not an appropriate remedy in this case.
Conclusion
In State v. S.P., Ryan Pacyga’s defense successfully blocked the State’s motion for restitution after securing the dismissal of charges. This case highlights the importance of understanding restitution laws and advocating for a fair outcome, especially when charges have been dismissed. By skillfully arguing that the alleged victim was not entitled to restitution, Pacyga protected his client from additional financial penalties and preserved the integrity of the legal process.