Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Defendant Peter Cruz was charged by amended information with three counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and one count of oral copulation with a child under 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b)), involving three victims: S.D., A.T., and A.Y. Shortly after opening arguments in his jury trial, he pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted aggravating sentencing factors. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts and One Strike law circumstances, and the parties stipulated to a 10-year sentence.
The trial court imposed the stipulated sentence and reserved victim restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f). At the restitution hearing, the prosecution requested $525,000 in noneconomic restitution—$350,000 for S.D., $150,000 for A.T., and $25,000 for A.Y.—arguing that $50,000 per year of abuse was reasonable under People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415. The court awarded the requested amounts, stating the abuse significantly affected all victims negatively and the request was not extraordinary or inappropriate.
Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court failed to articulate a rational method for calculating noneconomic restitution as required by People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, and improperly imported Smith's per-year formula.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Giordano's rational-method requirement governs noneconomic restitution. Giordano addressed economic restitution, where quantifiable criteria such as income and age are available. Noneconomic restitution compensates for subjective psychological harm—fear, anxiety, nightmares, depression, suicidal ideation—for which no precise quantitative method exists. Applying Smith and the court's recent decision in People v. Castillo (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 1142, the court held that noneconomic restitution awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion under the shocks-the-conscience standard. This is not a departure from the abuse of discretion standard; an award constitutes an abuse of discretion only if it is so large that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption.
The court found no abuse of discretion. Although the prosecution's restitution brief gave little consideration to the individual victims' specific noneconomic injuries, the trial court did not simply adopt the prosecution's arguments or blindly apply Smith's formula. The record contained substantial evidence of the victims' particular psychological injuries: S.D. described years of therapy, medication for suicidal ideation, and panic attacks; A.Y. described severe anxiety; and the mother of S.D. and A.T. described PTSD diagnoses and ongoing medical care. The trial court indicated it considered this evidence.
The court distinguished People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, where noneconomic restitution was unsupported for lack of evidence of victim impact. Here, evidence of psychological injuries arising from the molestation supported the award. Defendant did not argue there was no substantial evidence of noneconomic damage, nor did he demonstrate the awards were so excessive as to shock the conscience.
Key Takeaways
- Noneconomic restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4 is reviewed for abuse of discretion under the shocks-the-conscience standard, not Giordano's rational-method requirement for economic restitution.
- A trial court must have evidence of each victim's specific noneconomic injuries; it may not assume injury from the fact or duration of abuse alone, though degree and duration are relevant considerations.
- Victim impact statements describing psychological harm can provide substantial evidence supporting noneconomic restitution awards.
- An award is an abuse of discretion only if so excessive that it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the distinction between economic and noneconomic restitution. While economic restitution requires a rational calculation method, noneconomic restitution for psychological harm is inherently subjective. The shocks-the-conscience standard, adopted in Smith and extended in Castillo, gives trial courts broad discretion subject only to review for awards that are arbitrarily and capriciously excessive.
The decision clarifies that trial courts must have evidence of the victim's specific noneconomic injuries before awarding restitution; they may not assume all victims of a particular crime suffer injury. Prosecutors should present evidence of the actual psychological impact on each victim, and courts should indicate on the record that they considered that evidence.