Colorado’s second-highest court last week overturned several orders, in whole or in part, for criminal defendants to pay financial restitution to their victims.

In the first case in Arapahoe County, Aron Sanchez was charged with two sets of felonies. He was accused of breaking into a vehicle to steal a stereo, after which his co-defendant shot and killed a person who confronted Sanchez. Separately, he was charged with shoplifting items from a hardware store.

Prosecutors originally charged Sanchez with murder and aggravated robbery, respectively, but he pleaded guilty to the lesser charges of accessory to murder and attempted aggravated robbery.

The government required Sanchez to pay approximately $3,000 in restitution for his actions. The dollar figure covered the shooting victim’s funeral and the value of items stolen from the hardware store. U.S. District Court Judge Shay K. Whitaker ordered Sanchez to pay the requested amount.

On appeal, Sanchez argued that he could not be held financially liable because his criminal conduct did not result in the losses at issue. Specifically, because Sanchez was convicted of accessory to murder — that is, aiding the shooter after the fact — he did not cause the victim’s death and should not be responsible for the cost of the funeral.

Similarly, because Sanchez’s conviction was for attempted robbery, not robbery itself, the value of the missing property was not attributed to him. Upholding the orders, Sanchez argued, would require him to pay restitution for the conduct for which he was acquitted.

In an unusual move, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office acknowledged that Sanchez’s argument was correct and the restitution orders could not stand.

“We also agree and vacate the orders,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Anthony J. Navarro. notice 24 Oct.

The case is People v. Sanchez.

In the second case in Mesa County, Adam Joseph Salaz pleaded guilty to kidnapping an Uber driver, robbery and aggravated theft of a motor vehicle. Prosecutors asked Salaz to pay $11,265 in restitution, including the victim’s lost wages, her deductible for auto repairs and the replacement of the cell phone and headphones Salaz stole.

The Court of Appeal generally upheld the restitution order, with one exception: the phone.

The victim bought a new version of her stolen phone for $500. Then-District Court Judge Valerie Robison noted that there was no evidence that “the replacement of the previous telephone could have been accomplished at a lower cost.”

But Salaz argued that the purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, not to leave them in a better position than before the crime. In this case, the victim bought a new phone and was better off than if Salaz had been forced to pay only the fair market value of the stolen phone.

“The victim’s testimony that the cell phone was two years old when it was stolen necessarily established that it was of less value than a brand new phone,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth L. Harris. notice 24 Octagree with Salaz. Prosecutors “did not present any evidence of the phone’s fair market value or any efforts made by the victim to obtain a comparable used cell phone.”

Consequently, the court ordered that $500 be deducted from Salaz’s restitution obligation.

The case is People v. Salaz.