## Facts

- Melinda Strom pleaded guilty to misapplication of entrusted property exceeding $50,000 under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-07(1).
- The district court imposed a five-year sentence, fully suspended, with three years of supervised probation.
- Restitution was left open at sentencing and later determined at a restitution hearing.
- At the hearing, Strom presented evidence of her financial circumstances and argued N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1) required the court to consider her ability to pay in setting restitution.
- The district court concluded N.D. Const. art. I, § 25(1)(n) (Marsy’s Law), guaranteeing victims “full and timely restitution in every case,” superseded the statute’s ability-to-pay consideration.
- Without considering Strom’s finances, the district court ordered restitution of $690,910.67, reflecting the victim’s claimed losses.
- Strom appealed the restitution order.

## Issues

1. Whether N.D. Const. art. I, § 25 (Marsy’s Law) supersedes or impliedly repeals N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1) so that a court may not consider a defendant’s ability to pay when determining restitution.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider Strom’s financial resources in setting the restitution order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded.
- Marsy’s Law did not impliedly repeal N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1) and does not bar consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay.
- The district court applied an incorrect legal standard by declining to consider ability to pay and therefore abused its discretion in ordering restitution.
- On remand, the district court must reconsider restitution applying the statutory requirement to account for the defendant’s financial resources and the burden of payment.

## Legal Principles

- Interpretation of constitutional provisions and statutes is reviewed de novo; a restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, including whether the court applied the correct legal standard.
- Repeals by implication are disfavored; constitutional and statutory provisions should be harmonized when reasonably possible.
- Marsy’s Law establishes a victim’s right to “full and timely restitution,” but does not specify the method for calculating restitution or eliminate statutory procedures governing how restitution is imposed.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08(1) requires the sentencing court to consider the defendant’s financial resources and the burden payment will impose when ordering restitution.
- A court’s refusal to consider ability to pay based on a mistaken view that the constitution forecloses it constitutes legal error and can render the restitution order an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that Marsy’s Law and the restitution statute can operate together, and that courts must still consider a defendant’s ability to pay when ordering restitution; because the district court refused to do so, the restitution order was reversed and the case remanded for a new determination under the correct legal standard.


State v. Strom, 921 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2019)