State v. Hoseman
334 Wis. 2d 415, 2011 WI App 88, 799 N.W.2d 479 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner whose property is physically altered and damaged as an integral part of a criminal enterprise is a "direct victim" of that crime for the purposes of restitution. The damage is considered a direct result of the criminal conduct when it is essential to the commission of the crime, not merely a collateral consequence.
Facts:
- Tom and Lisa Burbey owned an 1885 Victorian home which they decided to rent out after it failed to sell.
- Michael S. Hoseman, posing as the son of a co-conspirator, rented the house from the Burbeys under the false pretense that it would be a weekend retreat with a long-term plan to purchase it.
- After the Burbeys moved out of state, Hoseman and his co-conspirators converted two upstairs bedrooms into a sophisticated hydroponic marijuana growing operation.
- The conversion involved stapling reflective sheets to the walls, running hoses and electrical wiring, covering windows, and mounting security cameras.
- The operation caused extensive damage, including mold and mildew from high humidity, ruined wood floors from chemical barrels, THC resin saturation on surfaces, and stains in toilets and sinks from draining acidic chemicals.
- The damage from the operation, including frozen pipes from a non-working furnace, ultimately rendered the home uninhabitable.
- After several months of not receiving rent, Tom Burbey returned to the house, had to break in because the locks had been changed, discovered the growing operation, and notified law enforcement.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael S. Hoseman was charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in a Wisconsin trial court.
- Hoseman entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana.
- The trial court sentenced Hoseman and tentatively held him jointly and severally liable for $106,409.63 in restitution for property damages claimed by the homeowners, the Burbeys.
- Hoseman filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing on restitution, arguing the court lacked authority because the Burbeys were not direct victims of his crime.
- The trial court denied the motion, held that the Burbeys were victims, and, after a hearing, ordered Hoseman to pay $25,000 in restitution based on his ability to pay.
- Hoseman appealed the restitution order to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner qualify as a "direct victim" entitled to restitution under Wisconsin law when their property is rented under false pretenses and then extensively damaged and altered to facilitate a conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, a crime that does not have property damage as an element?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
Yes, a property owner qualifies as a direct victim entitled to restitution under these circumstances. The court holds that when property is physically altered and damaged as an integral part of a criminal conspiracy, the property owner is a direct victim of that crime. The court rejected Hoseman's argument that manufacturing marijuana is a "victimless" crime and that the Burbeys were not direct victims because property damage is not an element of the offense. It distinguished this case from precedents where governmental entities were denied restitution for collateral expenses incurred during law enforcement actions. Here, the Burbeys' residence was the direct target and instrument of the conspiracy; the alterations and damage were not collateral but were integral to furthering the goal of manufacturing marijuana. The criminal act of conspiracy set into motion the events that resulted in the damage, establishing the necessary causal link for restitution.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of "direct victim" status for restitution purposes, extending it beyond the named victim in the elements of a crime. It establishes that property owners whose property is commandeered and damaged to facilitate a criminal enterprise are not merely indirect parties with a civil claim, but are direct victims of the criminal conduct itself. This precedent strengthens the ability of such property owners to recover losses through the criminal justice system, affirming that harm integral to a criminal scheme is directly attributable to the defendant, regardless of the specific crime charged.
