## Facts

- The United States District Court for the District of Utah issued one memorandum opinion resolving restitution questions arising in two separate Indian Country homicide prosecutions: **United States v. Bedonie** and **United States v. Serawop**.
- **Levangela Bedonie** was convicted of **involuntary manslaughter** for a drunk-driving crash on the Navajo Reservation that killed passenger **Brian Johnson**.
- Johnson’s family sought restitution that included funeral-related expenses (including traditional Navajo services) and the economic value of Johnson’s lost earnings.
- **Harold Serawop** was convicted of **voluntary manslaughter** for killing his three-month-old daughter, **Beyoncé Serawop**, in Indian Country.
- In Serawop, the court had previously ordered limited burial-related restitution (including an amount to the Ute Tribe) and later addressed whether additional restitution should include the child’s projected lost income.
- Because the defendants disputed whether restitution could include future lost income, and how to calculate it, the court appointed an economist under **18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(4)** to provide alternative lost-income projections, including projections based on race/sex-specific data and race/sex-neutral data.
- The court addressed statutory questions under the **Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A**, and, as an alternative basis (at least as to Bedonie), the **Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663**.

## Issues

1. Whether **involuntary manslaughter** (Bedonie) and **voluntary manslaughter** (Serawop) are “**crimes of violence**” that trigger mandatory restitution under the **MVRA**.
2. In a homicide case, whether the “**victim**” for MVRA purposes is the deceased person or the estate/survivors.
3. Whether MVRA restitution for “**lost income**” in a homicide case includes **future lost income**, and whether such awards are too speculative (including for an infant).
4. If MVRA did not apply to Bedonie, whether the court could impose the same restitution under the **VWPA**.
5. Whether the court must reduce projected lost income by the victim’s hypothetical personal “**consumption**” of earnings.
6. Whether the lost-income calculation may use **race- and sex-based** earnings tables or must use **race- and sex-neutral** data.
7. Whether restitution may include **culturally based funeral and related services**, including the cost of a **Navajo medicine man**.

## Decision

- The court held that the manslaughter convictions at issue qualify as “**crimes of violence**” under the MVRA’s framework, making restitution mandatory.
- The court held that, for MVRA purposes in a homicide case, the “**victim**” is the **deceased person**, even though payment is made to a proper representative or designee under the statute.
- The court held that MVRA restitution in homicide cases includes the victim’s “**lost income**,” and that this includes **future lost income** supported by reliable economic proof.
- The court rejected the argument that future earnings are categorically too speculative, and allowed a reasoned projection methodology even for a very young victim.
- The court stated that **even if** MVRA did not apply to Bedonie, it would order the same restitution under the **VWPA**.
- The court adopted **race- and sex-neutral** earnings projections as the most appropriate approach and rejected use of projections that turned on race or sex.
- The court declined to reduce lost-income restitution by a personal “**consumption**” offset, using gross lost earnings rather than subtracting hypothetical personal spending.
- The court allowed restitution for “**necessary funeral and related services**” that included the cost of **Navajo medicine man services** requested in Bedonie.
- The court set lost-income restitution at **$446,665** in **Bedonie** (and included **$3,140** for medicine man services as part of funeral-related restitution, along with other previously ordered funeral costs).
- The court set lost-income restitution at **$325,751** in **Serawop**, in addition to previously ordered burial-related restitution (including an amount payable to the Ute Tribe).
- The court ordered restitution **due immediately**, with payment to be made on a court-established schedule.

## Legal Principles

- Manslaughter offenses can constitute “**crimes of violence**” for purposes of mandatory restitution under the **MVRA**.
- In a homicide case, the MVRA’s “**victim**” is the person killed; the statute then directs payment through a representative or other proper recipient.
- MVRA restitution for “**lost income**” in homicide cases includes reasonably supported **future lost earnings**, not only losses already incurred at the time of sentencing.
- Courts may appoint an economic expert under **18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(4)** and rely on accepted economic methods to calculate lost income.
- A court may select **race- and sex-neutral** earnings data for restitution projections and decline to base compensation on race- or sex-linked earnings assumptions.
- The MVRA does not require a deduction for the victim’s hypothetical personal “**consumption**” of earnings when determining lost-income restitution.
- “**Necessary funeral and related services**” may include culturally based services when tied to funeral practices and supported by the record (including Navajo medicine man services).
- The **rule of lenity** does not limit interpretation of federal restitution statutes in the same way it limits penal statutes.
- Restitution may be ordered **in full immediately**, while still being payable over time through a court-ordered schedule.

## Conclusion

In a single memorandum opinion addressing restitution disputes in both Bedonie and Serawop, the district court applied the MVRA to manslaughter convictions, treated the deceased as the statutory “victim,” and required restitution that included future lost income calculated with race- and sex-neutral projections and without a consumption reduction, while also approving certain culturally based funeral-related expenses and ordering restitution due immediately subject to a payment schedule.


United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004) (addressing restitution issues in both Bedonie and Serawop matters)