Cited by

P. 32.2(b); ¶ 13 n.1 (App. 2019) (we have “discretion to apply preclusion on review”).

¶ 22 (App. 2019) (noting “[t]he State has the burden to prove a restitution claim by a preponderance of the evidence”).

¶ 14 (App. 2019) (“The court determined, however, that Quijada presented a colorable claim about whether stolen items had been recovered or returned since the court issued the restitution order, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that issue.”); Reed, 252 Ariz. at 330, ¶ 4 (a “restitution hearing” was held t

P. 33.2(b)(1); ¶ 13 n.1 (App. 2019).

In some circumstances this may present a due process concern, (due process violation when defendant not allowed opportunity to question victim as to restitution at restitution hearing), particularly if a defendant is not otherwise able to investigate the out-of-state charges.

And any “court may determine by a preponderance of the evidence” if “an issue is precluded.” Id.; ¶ 13, n.1 (App. 2019) (“[T]his court has the discretion to apply preclusion on review[.]”).

And any court “may determine by a preponderance of the evidence” if “an issue is precluded.” Id.; ¶ 13 n.1 (App. 2019) (“[T]his court has the discretion to apply preclusion on review[.]”).

¶18 The cost of installing new home security cameras is directly attributable to criminal conduct if it was “incurred ‘in an effort to restore the victim’s equanimity’ following the criminal offense.” ¶ 44 (App. 2019) ().

¶7 “Arizona permits restitution for a wide variety of expenses, so long as those expenses flow directly from the defendant’s criminal conduct.” ¶ 43 (App. 2019) (cleaned up).

¶ 27 (App. 2019); Jeff D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016), as amended (Apr.