PHOENIX — The family of a murdered child can seek restitution for his future lost wages, according to a Wednesday decision from the Arizona Supreme Court.
The case the court ruled on was E.H. v. Hon. Slatyon, et. al. The victim’s half-sister, whom court documents referred to as Elise, is seeking over $3.3 million in restitution for future lost wages.
Elise is suing the murdered boy’s uncle, Jason Conlee, for the money she says her half-brother would have earned throughout his life.
Conlee has pleaded guilty to child abuse and endangerment in relation to the boy’s death.
The court ruled that the murdered 6-year-old boy’s lost wages are recoverable on the stipulation that the money Elise is seeking “must have a reasonable basis” and can’t be based on speculation or conjecture.
Defendants for Conlee argued that he owed between $153,712 and $919,598, rather than $3.3 million. Elise said she would accept the higher number.
How did the victim’s family seek restitution for future lost wages?
As a half-sister to the victim, Elise is also considered a victim of Conlee’s crimes.
The Victims’ Bill of Rights in the Arizona Constitution allows for Elise to seek restitution as the “next closest relative who is not a criminal defendant.”
The defandants for Conlee argued that any amount provided when estimating the murdered 6-year-old boy’s wages would be “speculative” and “too attenuated, both factually and temporally.”
Superior courts sided with Conlee. They denied Elise’s requests by claiming that the 6-year-old boy’s future lost wages were too attenuated to recover.
The case then went on to the Arizona Supreme Court on the grounds that it was a statewide issue. The judges determined that a case had to satify the “Wilkinson test” in order to qualify for restitution. That test has three pieces:
-
- Losses must be economic
- They would not have occurred if not for the crimes against the victim
- Directly caused by criminal conduct.
The state Supreme Court found that Elise’s case met the requirements. Its decision said the amount Conlee should pay must be “reasonably related to the anticipated loss.”
The case was then sent back to the superior court that had denied Elise’s request for restitution.
“We remand to that court to decide whether Elise has sufficiently demonstrated the amount of those wages, and, if necessary, conduct a hearing,” Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote in the opinion.
The case marked the 10th time the Arizona Supreme Court utilized an AI reporter on its YouTube channel as an explainer.
The post Arizona high court rules family of murdered child can seek restitution for loss of future wages appeared first on KTAR.
