The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a restitution order against Trisha Lynn Peterson, who was found guilty of vandalizing a dog-wash machine. The court ruled that Peterson must pay $21,050 to the owner of Get ’er Clean Car Wash, Jeffery Guetter, for the full replacement cost of the damaged machine. This decision highlights the legal principles surrounding restitution in criminal cases and the responsibilities of offenders to compensate victims for their losses.
The case, State v. T. Peterson, was filed under docket number DA 24-0706. Peterson was charged with felony theft by accountability and felony criminal mischief after she and her co-defendant, Robert Taylor, vandalized the dog-wash machine in January 2024. The court's ruling on June 23, 2026, is significant because it clarifies how restitution amounts are determined and what constitutes a victim's pecuniary loss.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the State of Montana, represented by the Attorney General's office, and Trisha Lynn Peterson, the defendant. The dispute arose after Peterson and Taylor used a sledgehammer to break into a dog-wash machine at Guetter's car wash. Following the incident, police found tools in Peterson's truck that were used in the vandalism. In June 2024, Peterson pleaded guilty to the charges against her and agreed to pay restitution to Guetter.
During the restitution hearing, Guetter testified about the damage caused to the dog-wash machine and the costs associated with its repair. He claimed that the machine, which he purchased for around $17,000 in 2020, was inoperable after the incident and that it would be more cost-effective to buy a new machine than to repair the damaged one. The court had to decide whether the restitution amount should reflect the cost of repairs or the full replacement cost of a new machine.
The Ruling
The Montana Supreme Court, led by Justice Beth Baker, affirmed the District Court's decision to order Peterson to pay $21,050 in restitution. The court found that Guetter's testimony regarding the replacement cost of the dog-wash machine was credible and supported by substantial evidence. The ruling stated, "The District Court complied with and correctly applied... when it sentenced Peterson jointly and severally to pay restitution in the amount of $21,050 to Guetter."
The court emphasized that the law allows for the full replacement cost of property damaged or destroyed due to criminal conduct. It noted that Peterson did not provide evidence to challenge Guetter's claims about the necessity of replacing the damaged machine. The court's ruling clarified that the restitution amount does not need to be limited to the market value of the property before the damage occurred.
Impact
This ruling sets a precedent for how restitution is calculated in cases involving property damage. It reinforces the principle that victims are entitled to full compensation for their losses, including the full replacement cost of damaged property. The decision may encourage victims to seek restitution in similar cases, knowing that courts can award amounts that reflect the actual cost of replacing damaged items.
Moreover, the ruling highlights the importance of presenting credible evidence during restitution hearings. Defendants must be prepared to challenge the claims made by victims and provide evidence to support their arguments regarding the appropriate amount of restitution. This case underscores the responsibilities of both parties in restitution proceedings.
What's Next
Peterson's options for appeal are limited following the Montana Supreme Court's ruling. However, her co-defendant, Robert Taylor, has also appealed his sentence, and that case is pending before the court. The outcome of Taylor's appeal may further clarify restitution issues in similar cases.