Reported / Citable
Background
Kavi Michael Singh pleaded guilty to forcible rape after sexually assaulting a university freshman in her dorm room. The victim’s resulting trauma prevented her from continuing at the university, and she lost the unused portion of a four-year scholarship.
The trial court ordered Singh to pay $20,000 for the lost scholarship in addition to stipulated medical and counseling expenses. Singh argued on appeal that restitution is punishment that must be pleaded and proved to a jury and that the scholarship award was speculative because the victim might not have retained the scholarship or returned to school.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. A recent United States Supreme Court decision treating restitution as punishment for a different constitutional question did not create a California jury-trial right over the amount of victim restitution. In any event, Singh’s plea documents waived a jury and acknowledged that the court would determine restitution.
The $20,000 award had a rational factual basis. Testimony, scholarship documents, the victim-impact statement, and Singh’s stipulation established that the assault caused the victim to leave school and lose funding she otherwise could have used. Restitution could restore the victim’s ability to finance an education even if she chose a different institution or program. The court also honored the prosecution’s stipulation temporarily staying interest during the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- California victim restitution amounts remain judicial determinations rather than facts that must always go to a jury.
- A guilty-plea waiver can independently defeat a later jury-right argument about restitution.
- Lost educational funding may be recoverable economic loss when crime prevents the victim from using it.
- Once the prosecution presents a reasonable basis for loss, the defendant must rebut it rather than demand mathematical certainty.
Why It Matters
The published decision recognizes that crime-related economic loss includes more than bills already paid. Educational opportunities have measurable value, and restitution may fund a replacement opportunity when the original scholarship became unusable because of the offense.
Prosecutors and victim advocates should document scholarship terms, academic plans, and causation. Defense counsel should address restitution waivers during plea negotiations and develop concrete evidence if disputing whether a claimed future benefit would have been realized.