When someone is convicted of a crime that involves a car accident, a court may order the person to pay the victim back for the damage. That payment is called restitution. But not every loss connected to an event can be ordered as restitution — Florida law ties restitution to the specific crime a person was charged with.
That distinction can produce results that feel counterintuitive. A driver may have caused real damage, and a trial judge may believe payment is fair, yet the wording of the restitution statute and the court decisions interpreting it can still block the order.
This tension is on full display in Mahoney v. State, a recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaway
Under existing Florida Supreme Court precedent, a restitution order must be causally connected to the specific offense charged. Because the appellate court found the crash was not causally tied to the offense of driving on a suspended license, it reversed the restitution order.
What happened in this case?
The driver caused a car accident and was charged with two offenses: driving while her license was cancelled, suspended, or revoked, and leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in property damage. She was convicted.
The trial court withheld adjudication, imposed fines and court costs, and, after a hearing, ordered her to pay restitution of $3,918.58 to the victim.
What was the legal issue?
On appeal, the driver argued that the damage was not causally related to the charged offenses, so restitution should not have been ordered.
Normally, a legal argument must first be raised in the trial court to be considered on appeal. Here, the appellate court explained that this particular argument could be raised for the first time on appeal because ordering restitution for something entirely outside the scope of the prosecution can amount to fundamental error.
What did the court decide?
The appellate court reversed and vacated the judgment and the restitution order. It relied on a Florida Supreme Court decision holding that restitution must be causally connected to the offense charged.
Applying that precedent, the court concluded that the fact of a suspended license was not causally related to the crash — meaning the damage could not be ordered as restitution for that offense.
Why does the wording of the restitution statute matter?
Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, governs restitution to crime victims. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing that current Supreme Court precedent required reversal, but urging the Supreme Court to revisit that precedent.
That concurring opinion emphasized a 1993 change to the statute. Before the amendment, the law tied restitution to loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense. After the amendment, the statute also requires restitution for loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode, unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order it.
“Caused by the offense” versus “related to the criminal episode”
The concurrence argued that the phrase “related to the criminal episode” is broader than “caused by the offense,” and that courts should give effect to that broader language. That is a debate about how to read the statute — not a change in the current rule.
Why does this matter to people affected by these cases?
This decision illustrates how the precise offense charged can shape what a court may order as restitution. Two people can look at the same accident and reach different conclusions about whether a loss is “connected” to the crime, depending on how the statute and precedent are read.
It also shows that appellate courts follow binding precedent even when a judge personally questions it. Here, the panel applied existing Supreme Court law while one judge separately asked the higher court to reconsider that law.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.