Recoverability of Future Lost Wages of a Child Murder Victim as Restitution

Introduction

In E.H. v. Hon. Slayton, 2025 Ariz. LEXIS ___, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether the future lost wages of a murdered child qualify as “economic losses” recoverable as restitution under the Arizona Constitution’s Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) and the Victims’ Rights Implementation Act (VRIA). The petition was brought by Elise (“E.H.”), the surviving half‐sister of Jack, a six‐year‐old child murdered by Lillian Hester. Jack’s grandmother, Lenda Hester, and Lillian’s boyfriend, Jason Conlee, had pleaded guilty to related charges and were ordered to pay restitution for Jack’s past economic losses. Elise sought an additional award exceeding $3 million for Jack’s projected future earnings. After the trial court denied that portion of her claim as impermissible consequential damages, and the court of appeals affirmed, Elise petitioned for review.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Timmer, writing for a unanimous court, reversed the lower courts and held:

Future economic losses, including lost earnings, are recoverable as restitution if they satisfy the Wilkinson test: (1) they are economic losses, (2) they would not have been incurred but for the offense, and (3) they were directly caused by the criminal conduct.
A child murder victim’s lost future wages flow directly and immediately from the murder; no intervening causal events render them consequential damages excluded by A.R.S. § 13-603(C).
The “too‐attenuated” concept imported from federal law does not apply under Arizona’s restitution statutes and cannot override the Wilkinson standard.
The case is remanded to the superior court to determine, based on a reasonable evidentiary basis, the amount of restitution for Jack’s future lost earnings or to hold a restitution hearing under A.R.S. § 13-804(G).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (2002): Established the three‐pronged test for restitutionable economic losses.
State v. Howard, 168 Ariz. 458 (App. 1991): Held that future medical expenses and future lost wages are statutorily required restitution if directly caused by the offense.
State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 328 (2022): Clarified de novo review of statutory interpretation and abuse‐of‐discretion standard for restitution.
Appellate decisions Morris, Barrett, Sexton: Illustrated the exclusion of consequential damages not flowing directly from criminal acts.
Federal cases (e.g., Vaknin, Sablan): Introduced “too‐attenuated” causation, but were distinguished and rejected under Arizona law.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning turned on the intersection of three bodies of law:

Constitutional Mandate: Article 2, § 2.1(A)(8) provides crime victims the right “to receive prompt restitution” from convicted offenders for economic losses.
Statutory Framework: A.R.S. § 13-603(C) defines restitution as reimbursement for “economic loss,” which includes “lost earnings” but excludes “pain and suffering,” “punitive damages,” and “consequential damages” (A.R.S. § 13-105(16)).
Wilkinson Test: A restitutionable loss must (1) be economic, (2) not arise but for the offense, and (3) flow directly from the criminal conduct without requiring additional causal events.

By applying these principles de novo, the Court concluded that:

Future lost wages are inherently economic and would not have existed but for Jack’s murder.
Death is the sole causal event eliminating Jack’s capacity to earn; no further factual or temporal nexus is required.
Arizona’s statutes do not adopt the federal restitution act’s discretionary or attenuated causation standards.
The award must still rest on a “reasonable basis” and avoid pure speculation; quantification may require a restitution hearing.

Impact

This decision has significant ramifications for criminal restitution proceedings in Arizona:

Reaffirms a broad interpretation of “economic loss” under the VBR and VRIA, encompassing reasonably anticipated future earnings.
Limits defense arguments seeking to classify long-term losses as “consequential” or “speculative” merely because they arise in the future.
Ensures that child victims’ families can seek full compensation for a murder victim’s entire economic life expectancy through the criminal process rather than solely through civil litigation.
Clarifies courts’ duty to apply the Wilkinson test and to hold restitution hearings under A.R.S. § 13-804(G) when the amount cannot be determined from the existing record.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Economic Loss: Out-of-pocket financial harm directly caused by the crime, including lost wages, medical bills, and funeral expenses.
Consequential Damages: Losses that result indirectly from a wrongful act only after another intervening event—e.g., lost profits due to market changes, not payable as restitution.
Wilkinson Test: A three-part inquiry to distinguish direct restitutionable losses from excluded consequential damages.
“Too‐Attenuated” Causation: A principle from federal law requiring close factual and temporal proximity; rejected in Arizona for conflicting with the Wilkinson framework.
Restitution Hearing: A procedural safeguard under A.R.S. § 13-804(G) allowing courts to receive expert testimony or other proof when loss amounts are uncertain.

Conclusion

E.H. v. Hon. Slayton establishes a clear precedent: a murdered child’s projected future earnings constitute economic losses directly caused by the criminal act and are recoverable as restitution under Arizona law. By rejecting the “too-attenuated” federal standard and reaffirming the Wilkinson test, the Arizona Supreme Court has ensured that victims’ families may seek full compensation through the criminal restitution process, subject only to a reasonable evidentiary showing of amount. Trial courts must now apply these principles and, where necessary, conduct restitution hearings to arrive at a rational estimate of future lost wages, preserving both victims’ rights and the integrity of the restitution mechanism.