State v. Murray
State v. Murray, 2023 UT App 52 (Tenney, J.)
After indirectly communicating with C.M., Murray pleaded guilty to violating a protective order and was ordered to pay restitution for C.M.’s lost wages and moving expenses. Murray challenged the restitution order on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding:
- The district court erred when it required Murray to pay $744.19 in restitution for moving expenses, because his violation of the protective order did not proximately cause her moving expenses.
- The district court did not err when it ordered restitution in the amount of $5,520.28 for lost wages, because Murray’s violation of the protective order did proximately cause C.M. to miss work.
- Practice Tip: When deciding whether a defendant’s conduct proximately caused harm to a party protected under a protective order, district courts may consider the conduct that led to the issuance of the protective order in the first place.
- Practice Tip: Motions filed any time prior to a district court’s final ruling are prejudgment motions. District courts lose jurisdiction over pending prejudgment motions once a final judgment is entered and a timely notice of appeal is filed.