The Indiana Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Tawk Hre v. State of Indiana, reversing a lower court's order requiring Hre to pay restitution for rental car expenses incurred by the victim, Katie Mumford. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in making the restitution order, which has implications for how restitution is determined in similar cases involving DUI charges.
This ruling affects individuals involved in DUI cases and sets a precedent regarding what expenses can be included in restitution orders. The decision emphasizes the need for strict adherence to statutory guidelines when determining restitution amounts.
Background
Tawk Hre, a 42-year-old man, was involved in a serious car accident in January 2025, where he crashed into Mumford’s vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol. A blood test indicated that Hre had a blood alcohol concentration of .277, significantly above the legal limit. Following the incident, Hre pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, in November 2025.
After his guilty plea, the trial court sentenced Hre to 360 days in jail, with 356 days suspended to probation. A restitution hearing was scheduled for a later date to address the financial impact of the accident on Mumford. During this hearing, Mumford testified about her transportation challenges while waiting for her vehicle to be repaired. She presented evidence of expenses incurred from using rideshare services like Uber and Lyft, totaling $521.35, and a rental car costing $1,122.12.
In March 2026, the trial court ordered Hre to pay Mumford $1,122.12 for the rental car expenses but did not require him to cover the rideshare costs. Hre appealed this decision, arguing that the court had overstepped its bounds by including rental car expenses in the restitution order.
The Ruling
The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with Hre, stating that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay for Mumford's rental car expenses. Judge Pyle, who authored the opinion, noted, "the rental car expenses in this case are functionally indistinguishable from the public transportation expenses in Person," a previous case where the court ruled against similar restitution claims.
The court referenced Indiana Code § 35-50-5-3, which outlines the types of expenses that can be included in restitution orders. The statute specifies categories such as property damages, medical costs, and lost earnings, but does not mention rental car expenses. The court emphasized that while it may make sense from a public policy perspective to reimburse such costs, it is ultimately up to the Indiana General Assembly to amend the law to include these types of expenses.
As a result, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for a corrected restitution order, eliminating the rental car expenses from the financial obligations imposed on Hre.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future DUI cases and restitution orders in Indiana. It clarifies that expenses not explicitly outlined in the restitution statute cannot be included in orders against defendants. This decision may influence how victims of DUI incidents approach restitution claims, knowing that certain costs, like rental vehicles, may not be recoverable through the court system.
Furthermore, the ruling sets a precedent that could affect similar cases across Indiana. Victims may need to reconsider their financial claims and focus on expenses that fall within the statutory guidelines to ensure they are eligible for restitution. The decision reinforces the necessity for courts to strictly interpret the law regarding restitution, ensuring that defendants are not held liable for costs that the legislature has not authorized.
What's Next
As of now, it is unclear if the state will appeal this ruling to a higher court. There are no related cases pending that directly address this issue, but the decision may prompt discussions among lawmakers about potential changes to the restitution statute in Indiana.