Reported / Citable
Background
A juvenile court ordered X.G. to pay the victim’s full economic losses after a theft-related adjudication. X.G. argued that recently amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 allowed the court to consider his degree of responsibility and other circumstances before imposing full restitution.
The juvenile court treated full restitution as mandatory and did not decide whether compelling and extraordinary reasons justified a lower award. X.G. appealed the restitution order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. It held that section 730.6 gives juvenile courts discretion to award less than full economic loss when compelling and extraordinary reasons support a reduction. A minor’s responsibility and fault are relevant, though the statute does not make ability to pay the controlling consideration.
That discretion is consistent with the California Constitution’s Victims’ Bill of Rights because the constitutional provision establishes a general right to restitution while the Legislature defines how restitution operates in juvenile proceedings. Full restitution remains the general rule, but it is not absolute.
Key Takeaways
- Juvenile courts must recognize their statutory discretion rather than treating full restitution as invariably mandatory.
- A minor’s responsibility and fault may support a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons.
- The court must make a case-specific determination and explain any departure from full restitution.
- The amended statute remains compatible with victims’ constitutional restitution rights.
Why It Matters
Juvenile defenders should develop evidence bearing on comparative fault and the minor’s role in producing the loss. Prosecutors and victims’ counsel should be prepared to address why the circumstances do or do not justify departing from full compensation.