The “Duke Rule” – When Victim Testimony & Expert Estimates Alone Sustain a Restitution Award

Introduction

In Timothy B. Duke v. State of Wyoming, 2025 WY 72, the Wyoming Supreme Court confronted a familiar yet legally delicate issue: how detailed must the State’s proof be before a sentencing court may impose a sizeable restitution award on a convicted defendant? The Court’s answer, now dubbed the “Duke Rule,” clarifies that credible victim testimony—supported by reasonable estimates derived from the victim’s own expertise and corroborated by a presentence investigation report (PSI)—can, without a perfected inventory, satisfy the State’s burden of proof.

The case springs from a multi-property burglary in Cheyenne that left collector Joseph Walsh and his wife Denise Parrish short hundreds of firearms, coins, tokens, antique police badges, tools, and large amounts of cash. Defendant Timothy Duke pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and challenged the district court’s award of $507,000 in restitution, arguing that the evidence was too speculative. On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the award.

Summary of the Judgment

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding sufficient evidence to support $507,000 in restitution.
Holding: The district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous; victim testimony, a detailed exhibit of estimated losses, and the PSI provided a “reasonable basis” for estimating the victims’ pecuniary damages.
Disposition: Restitution order affirmed; no abuse of discretion.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

The Court anchored its reasoning in a line of restitution cases that emphasize two themes—(i) the broad discretion of trial courts at sentencing and (ii) the low evidentiary threshold (“reasonable basis”) required for restitution:

Holliday v. State, 2024 WY 139 – established that a victim’s own testimony can, by itself, suffice when supported by “credible estimates.”
Kuebel v. State, 2019 WY 75 – articulated the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard for reviewing factual findings on restitution.
Smiley v. State, 2018 WY 50 – endorsed reliance on PSIs and victim-impact statements.
Brown v. State, 2003 WY 72 – recognized the probative value of a victim’s “well-informed opinions.”

By weaving these authorities together, the Court announced the incremental yet important extension: even when the victim cannot inventory every unrecovered item after a large-scale theft, estimates rooted in personal expertise and adjusted for items returned provide a legally sufficient foundation.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review: The Court reiterated the twin standards—“clearly erroneous” for factual findings and “abuse of discretion” for the overall restitution amount.
Statutory Framework: Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-9-101 to 103, the State must prove pecuniary damages by a preponderance of evidence; restitution may not include punitive elements.
Evidence Evaluated:
- Walsh’s sworn testimony describing the three burglarized houses and specific categories of missing property.
- Exhibit 1 – a detailed list with quantity & per-unit estimated values.
- Two photographs of recovered items (to show portion retrieved).
- 880-page binder of receipts (offered mainly to show diligence).
- The amended PSI containing Parrish’s corroborative victim-impact statement and photos of the debris.
Credibility & Expertise: Walsh’s lifelong experience as a certified appraiser, coin-shop owner, and numismatic association member elevated his estimates above mere speculation.
Conservative Adjustments: Walsh reduced his claim for firearms (100 instead of 150 missing) and tokens (600 rather than 1,200-1,500), illustrating caution rather than inflation—bolstering reliability.
No Counter-Evidence: Duke offered no witnesses or documents to refute the valuations or quantities. The Court noted that an appellant bears the risk of an undeveloped record.

3. Practical & Doctrinal Impact

The “Duke Rule” tightens the jurisprudence on restitution proof in Wyoming and arguably beyond:

Victim-Expert Nexus: Where the victim possesses demonstrable expertise in valuing the stolen items, detailed market appraisals or outside experts are not mandatory.
Large-Scale Theft Scenarios: Courts may accept estimates when burglaries create disarray, making a perfect inventory impractical.
Joint & Several Liability: The ruling implicitly assures that even when multiple codefendants are involved, a single credible quantification suffices to bind them all.
Future Litigation: Defense counsel must now present affirmative evidence to challenge victim valuations; mere cross-examination or claims of imprecision will seldom prevail.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pecuniary Damages vs. Punitive Damages: Restitution covers actual economic loss (replacement cost, fair market value) but not punishment or emotional suffering.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The State need only show that its figure is more likely than not correct—roughly a 51% certainty threshold.
Presentence Investigation Report (PSI): A confidential report prepared for the sentencing court that includes criminal history, victim-impact statements, and other relevant data.
Joint & Several Liability: Each defendant is individually responsible for the entire restitution amount; the victim collects once, and defendants may later seek contribution among themselves.
Abuse of Discretion Standard: An appellate court will not reverse unless the trial court’s decision “exceeds the bounds of reason” under the circumstances.

Conclusion

Timothy B. Duke v. State of Wyoming crystallizes a pragmatic rule: when a victim with relevant expertise provides credible, conservative estimates and those estimates are corroborated by even modest documentary or photographic evidence, a sentencing court may rely on them to set restitution—even in six-figure amounts—without violating due process.

The decision reinforces trial-court discretion, arms prosecutors with a clear roadmap for proving restitution in complex burglary cases, and signals to defense attorneys that generic objections will not suffice. Above all, the “Duke Rule” underscores Wyoming’s commitment to making victims economically whole, pragmatically balancing evidentiary rigor with real-world constraints that follow chaotic crimes.