973.20 Annotation Sub. (5) (d) carries forward the provision of prior s. 973.09 (1) (b), stats., allowing restitution to insurers, sureties, etc.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (6) is based on 18 USC 3663 (e) (1).

973.20 Annotation Sub. (7) is new. It allows the court to direct the order of payment when there is more than one victim, and to apportion liability when more than one defendant is ordered to make restitution to the same person, or to specify joint and several liability.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (10) is based on 18 USC 3663 (f).

973.20 Annotation Sub. (11) (a) is based on prior s. 973.09 (1) (b) and (1m) (c), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (11) (b) is based on prior s. 973.09 (1m) (d), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (12) (a) is based on prior s. 973.09 (1m) (a), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (12) (b) is based on prior s. 973.09 (1m) (c), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (12) (c) is based on prior s. 973.09 (1m) (cm), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (13) (a) is patterned on 18 USC 3664 (a). Prior s. 973.09 (1m) (a), stats., similarly required the court to consider the defendant's ability to pay when determining the amount of restitution.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (13) (b) is new. It makes the district attorney primarily responsible for obtaining information relating to the amount of loss suffered by any crime victim. Law enforcement, probation and parole, and victim assistance agencies must cooperate with the district attorney in this regard. The department of justice is directed to develop model forms and procedures for collecting victim loss data. See legislative audit bureau report No. 85-10, April 15, 1985, at 14-18.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (13) (c) creates several optional procedures for resolving disputes over the amount of restitution without resort to a judicial evidentiary hearing as provided by prior s. 973.09 (1m) (b), stats. First, the defendant may stipulate to the district attorney's determination of the amount of victim loss, while reserving the right to seek a lower amount of restitution based on ability-to-pay factors. Second, the court may hear the dispute at the sentencing proceeding, or adjourn the matter for later hearing prior to imposing sentence. Third, the court may order restitution of items not in dispute, referring disputed issues for subsequent resolution. Fourth, the court, with the consent of the parties, may refer disputed restitution issues to an arbitrator, whose determination is final and binding. Fifth, the court may appoint a referee to conduct fact-finding into the disputed restitution issues, whose proposed findings must be presented to the court within 60 days.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (14) (a) to (c) is based on 18 USC 3664 (d) and prior s. 973.09 (1m) (a), stats.

973.20 Annotation Sub. (14) (d) is new. It is intended to allow restitution disputes to be heard in an informal way so that parties may participate effectively without the need for legal counsel. Restitution hearings are not governed by the rules of evidence. State v. Pope, 107 Wis. 2d 726 (Ct. App. 1982). [87 Act 398]

973.20 Annotation In absence of objection to restitution summary, where defendant has received a copy, trial court may assume amount is not in dispute and may order restitution on that basis. In such cases, court need not make detailed findings under (13)(c). State v. Szarkowitz, 157 W (2d) 740, 460 NW (2d) 819 (Ct. App. 1990).

973.20 Annotation Under (14)(b) defendant has burden to offer evidence concerning ability to pay. Where defendant fails to offer evidence, trial court may order restitution without making detailed findings as to (13)(a)1 through 4. State v. Szarkowitz, 157 W (2d) 740, 460 NW (2d) 819 (Ct. App. 1990).

973.20 Annotation Application of bail toward payment of restitution is not permitted. State v. Cetnarowski, 166 W (2d) 700, 480 NW (2d) 790 (Ct. App. 1992).

973.20 Annotation Requiring a convicted defendant to deposit money for possible future counselling costs of victims was impermissible. State v. Handley, 173 W (2d) 838, 496 NW (2d) 725 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation Restitution to a party with no relation on the record to the crime of conviction or to read-in crimes is improper. State v. Mattes, 175 W (2d) 572, 499 NW (2d) 711 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation This section does not authorize restitution for non-pecuniary damages. State v. Stowers, 177 W (2d) 798, 503 NW (2d) 8 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation Imposition of restitution order after commencement of the defendant's jail sentence did not constitute double jeopardy. State v. Perry, 181 W (2d) 43, 510 NW (2d) 722 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation The time period for determining restitution under sub. (13) (c) 2. is directory not mandatory. State v. Perry, 181 W (2d) 43, 510 NW (2d) 722 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation Restitution for read-in charges may be ordered without the defendant's personal admission to the read-in charge. State v. Cleaves, 181 W (2d) 73, 510 NW (2d) 143 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation Sub. (1) imposes a mandatory duty on a court to provide for restitution; a sentence not providing restitution is illegal and subject to amendment to provide restitution. State v. Borst, 181 W (2d) 118, 510 NW (2d) 739 (Ct. App. 1993).

973.20 Annotation Repayment to police department of money used by police to buy drugs from a defendant is not authorized by this section. State v. Evans, 181 W (2d) 978, 512 NW (2d) 259 (Ct. App. 1994).

973.20 Annotation Interest on a restitution award is not allowed. State v. Hufford, 186 W (2d) 461, 522 NW (2d) 26 (Ct. App. 1994).

973.20 Annotation A restitution award for the repair or replacement cost of a stolen or damaged item is not limited to the fair market value of that item as determined by the jury. State v. Kennedy, 190 W (2d) 252, 528 NW (2d) 9 (Ct. App. 1994).

973.20 Annotation In the absence of specific objection at the time restitution is ordered, the trial court may proceed with the understanding that the defendant's silence is a constructive stipulation to the restitution, including the amount. State v. Hopkins, 196 W (2d) 36, 538 NW (2d) 543 (Ct. App. 1995).

973.20 Annotation The expenses of fire fighting and clean up resulting from a crime could not be properly awarded to the county as restitution because the county did not have a direct relationship with the crime of record and was not a victim. State v. Schmaling, 198 W (2d) 757, 543 NW (2d) 555 (Ct. App. 1995).

973.20 Annotation A restitution order is unaffected by bankruptcy proceedings. State v. Sweat, 202 W (2d) 366, 550 NW (2d) 709 (Ct. App. 1996).