## Facts

- Jack Pettit drove while impaired and caused a motor-vehicle accident that resulted in a child’s death.
- Prosecutors initially charged Pettit with negligent homicide.
- After plea negotiations, the negligent-homicide charge was dismissed, and Pettit pleaded guilty to driving while impaired.
- At sentencing, the court relied on the presentence report and offered probation instead of confinement, conditioned on restitution to the victim’s family.
- The restitution items initially included vehicle damage, funeral expenses, and a headstone cost.
- Defense counsel objected to the headstone item as undisclosed until the hearing; the court struck the headstone cost.
- The final probation condition required Pettit to pay restitution for vehicle repair costs and funeral expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may condition probation for impaired driving on restitution for property damage and funeral expenses arising from a fatal accident caused during the offense.
2. Whether ordering restitution for those losses exceeded sentencing authority or violated due process, given that a related negligent-homicide charge was dismissed.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and the restitution condition of probation.
- The court held the restitution condition was authorized as a probation condition and was “reasonable and just.”
- The court found a sufficient causal connection between Pettit’s impaired driving and the specific losses ordered (vehicle repair and funeral expenses).
- The court rejected the claim that the restitution order improperly functioned as a civil damages award, emphasizing it was not a substitute for determining civil liability.
- The court concluded the process was adequate where the defense could object and the court limited restitution to documented items (striking the late-disclosed headstone expense).

## Legal Principles

- A sentencing court may impose restitution as a condition of probation when the condition is “reasonable and just” and within statutory probation authority.
- Restitution must be limited to losses that are easily ascertained and measured and that directly result from the defendant’s criminal acts.
- Restitution in a criminal case is not an adjudication of civil liability and should not operate as a civil-damages substitute.
- For meaningful appellate review, the record should disclose the purpose of the restitution payments and how the amount was determined.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probationary restitution requiring payment of vehicle repair and funeral expenses because the losses were concrete, documented, and directly caused by the impaired-driving offense, and the restitution condition was a lawful, reasonable probation term rather than a civil damages determination.


People v. Pettit, 88 Mich. App. 203, 276 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)