Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-646
HRS § 706-646
COMMENTARY ON § 706-646
Act 269, Session Laws 1998, added this section and § 706-647 to allow victims of crime to enforce a criminal restitution order in the same manner as a civil judgment. This section also includes within the definition of "victim" a governmental entity which has reimbursed the victim for losses arising as a result of the crime, and allows the court to order restitution to be paid to the criminal injuries compensation commission if the victim has been given an award for compensation by the commission. Under current law, a defendant may be required by the court to pay restitution for losses caused to the victim. Collection of the restitution was left to governmental entities such as the judiciary, paroling authority, and department of public safety; these entities often were able to collect only a small fraction of the amount. Moreover, although the criminal injuries compensation commission helped victims by providing some compensation, victims of property crimes and some violent crimes were ineligible for any compensation from the commission. Furthermore, although a victim may bring a civil action against the defendant, the process was costly and time-consuming. The legislature believed that victims should have a "fast track" ability to be compensated for their losses by allowing victims to enforce the criminal restitution order as a civil judgment, using all of the civil collection remedies. Conference Committee Report No. 89, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3008.
Act 230, Session Laws 2006, amended this section to, among other things, require that when restitution is ordered, the amount ordered is not based on the defendant's financial ability to make restitution, but the defendant's financial ability to make restitution [shall] be considered in establishing the time and manner of payment. House Standing Committee Report No. 665-06.
Act 211, Session Laws 2012, amended this section by making a conforming amendment to include medical assistance provided by the State as an expense for which restitution may be ordered to conform with amendments made to other sections in the Hawaii Revised Statutes by Act 211. The legislature found that the medicaid program's ability to recover moneys from third parties to which it was entitled must be strengthened to maintain the viability of the medicaid program. Act 211 would assist the medicaid program in recovering those moneys, thereby reducing the burden on the program imposed by third parties and helping to ensure that the program is sustainable. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3314.
Defendant's argument that a crime victim who received indemnification from an insurer did not suffer a "loss" within the meaning of this section was without merit; the only exception for or reduction of restitution plainly stated in this section is that any amount actually recovered by the victim from the criminal should be deducted from the amount the victim might recover from the crime victim compensation special fund pursuant to § 351-33. 121 H. 135 (App.), 214 P.3d 1125. Trial court properly ordered defendant to repay the full amount of losses to employer without reduction for amounts paid by insurance, which furthered the rehabilitative purposes of this section to the greatest extent possible; if defendant was not required to pay any restitution, defendant would not have righted the wrong defendant committed and no rehabilitative purpose would be achieved; the interests of justice would not be served by allowing a thief to retain or otherwise benefit from the spoils of the thief's crime simply because the thief picked a victim who was prudent enough to have obtained insurance.121 Haw. 135 (App.),214 P.3d 1125. Where defendant was ordered to pay restitution to employer, the direct victim of defendant's crime, not employer's insurer, defendant's sentence complied with subsection (1).121 Haw. 135 (App.),214 P.3d 1125. Where (1) traffic accident victim, and not defendant, caused the accident, (2) it appeared that victim's vehicle flipped over on its roof causing victim's immediate death upon impact, and (3) there was no evidence in the record that defendant's criminal misconduct of failing to remain at the scene of the accident, provide information, and render reasonable assistance pursuant to §§ 291C-12 and 291C-14 caused victim's injuries or death, no nexus between defendant's conduct and victim's injuries and death had been demonstrated; thus, restitution could not be imposed under this section. 121 H. 191 (App.), 216 P.3d 117