## Facts

- A realtor listed a house for sale and hired electrician Andrew Ordanza to do work in the garage and attic.
- Ordanza saw Daniel Todd Huset walking nearby; Huset asked for water, and Ordanza told him he could use the outside spigot.
- Huset asked whether anyone was home; Ordanza said no, returned to work, and later saw Huset knock and enter the house.
- While in the attic, Ordanza heard glass breaking inside the house.
- Ordanza contacted the realtor and told her to call 9-1-1; to avoid a confrontation, Ordanza drove to a nearby church to wait.
- Ordanza later saw Huset walking and provided his location to law enforcement.
- Sheriff’s deputies approached Huset; he became agitated, and deputies drew their firearms and restrained him.
- The house had damage, including a broken glass table that belonged to the realtor.
- A jury convicted Huset of second-degree criminal trespass, criminal damage, and disorderly conduct; the court imposed prison sentences and ordered restitution.
- For lost wages, the victim testified she earned income through real-estate commissions, not an hourly wage; the court calculated an hourly rate by dividing her annual income and then multiplied that rate by eight hours per day for six court days.
- For the table, the victim testified she bought it from a friend for $500 but found a $1,500 “replacement value” through a Google search; the court ordered $1,500 restitution without determining whether repair was an option.
- Huset appealed his convictions and the restitution order.

## Issues

1. Was the evidence sufficient to support Huset’s convictions for criminal trespass, criminal damage, and disorderly conduct?
2. Did the trial court err by ordering restitution for the victim’s claimed lost wages using an imputed hourly rate based on commission income and assumed full workdays?
3. Did the trial court err by ordering $1,500 restitution for the damaged glass table based largely on an online replacement-price search without addressing repair or other reliable measures of loss?

## Decision

- The court affirmed Huset’s convictions.
- The court vacated the restitution award in full and remanded for a new restitution hearing.
- The court held the lost-wage award was not supported by evidence showing the victim actually lost identifiable income due to court attendance, given she was paid by commissions rather than hourly wages.
- The court held the table award lacked adequate support where the valuation relied on a Google-based replacement figure and the court did not address whether repair could reasonably restore the victim.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and does not reweigh witness credibility.
- Arizona restitution must be tied to “economic loss” caused by the offense and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Restitution cannot be based on assumptions or speculative calculations; it must reflect the victim’s actual, provable financial loss.
- When a victim’s income is commission-based, a court may not simply convert annual earnings into an hourly wage and assume a full workday of loss without evidence that court time caused a specific loss of earnings.
- For damaged property, restitution should be supported by reliable proof of loss, and the court should consider reasonable repair costs when repair can restore the item, rather than awarding replacement cost by default.

## Conclusion

State v. Huset affirmed Huset’s convictions for criminal trespass, criminal damage, and disorderly conduct but vacated the restitution order because the State did not prove the victim’s actual lost income from missed commission work or a reliable, non-speculative measure of loss for the damaged glass table, and the case was remanded for a new restitution hearing.


State v. Huset, 2017 WL 6333865 (2017)