BY THE COURT
issue not briefed by an appellant is deemed waived and
do not consider issues that a party raises for the first time
in a letter filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.09(b) (2018 Kan.
S.Ct. R. 39).
considering a restitution order, we review a district
court's factual findings relating to the causal link
between the crime committed and the victim's loss for
substantial competent evidence. Our review of a legal
conclusion regarding the interpretation of the restitution
statute is de novo.
interpreting a statute, we give effect to its plain and
unambiguous language. We will not read into the statute words
not readily found there. If the language of the statute is
unclear or ambiguous, we turn to canons of statutory
construction, consult legislative history, or consider other
background information to ascertain the statute's
establish that one thing proximately caused another, a party
must prove two elements: cause-in-fact and legal causation.
Generally, causation-in-fact requires proof that it is more
likely than not that, but for the defendant's conduct,
the result would not have occurred. Legal cause limits the
defendant's liability even when his or her conduct was
the cause-in-fact of a result by requiring that the defendant
is only liable when it was foreseeable that the
defendant's conduct might have created a risk of the harm
and the result of that conduct and any contributing causes
causation is based on a chain of events, an intervening cause
may absolve the defendant of liability. If the intervening
cause is foreseen or might reasonably have been foreseen by
the defendant, his or her conduct may still be considered to
have proximately caused the result.
causal link between a defendant's crime and the
restitution damages for which the defendant is held liable
must satisfy the traditional elements of proximate cause:
cause-in-fact and legal causation.
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed November 6, 2015.
from Wyandotte District Court; Michael A. Russell, judge.
D. Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the
cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Zipf-Sigler, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Alan T. Fogleman, assistant district attorney, Jerome A.
Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the brief for appellee.
State appeals the Court of Appeals' decision vacating the
district court's order of restitution. We reverse the
Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Appeals
for further review consistent with this opinion.
and Procedural Background
January 8, 2013, Taylor Arnett lent her mother's car to
Joseph Stroble and Brandon Bryant so the two could break into
houses. Allegedly, Stroble and Bryant then burglarized two
different houses, damaging one in the process, and stole over
$50, 000 worth of ...