A jury convicted a defendant in a criminal matter for a third-degree assault. The judge imposed restitution, including the cost of a security system installed by the victim.

The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction pursuant to a no-contest plea for third-degree assault that imposed $736.12 in restitution for the victim.

The victim and his girlfriend, while outside their house, were verbally accosted by the defendant, who was their next-door neighbor. During the altercation, the victim called police. Ten days later, as the victim was leaving a grocery store, the defendant and another individual “ambushed” the victim. The defendant punched him. When the victim fell, he hit his head on the concrete, splitting his eyelid and eyebrow open and causing trauma to his eye. He also broke two ribs and required eye surgery.

After the assault, the victim purchased a home security system that included a doorbell camera, an additional surveillance camera, a motion detector, and a panic button. The victim testified in court that he feared the defendant, who still lived next door to him. He further testified that since the assault, he was afraid to be outside of his home as he feared for his safety.

In imposing sentence against the defendant, the court ordered restitution which included the cost of the security system hardware and the self-defense items.

The court, in its decision, pointed out that whether damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of a defendant’s criminal conduct is generally “a factual question for the court.”

The court went on to make the following findings: “I agree with the state that it is reasonably foreseeable under these circumstances that the victim would incur expenses for the security measures that he put into place to protect himself and his household. That may not be the case in every assault case, especially one involving strangers, but the record here shows that that’s not the limit of the facts in this case. Instead we’ve got a situation where they’re next door neighbors, and they have ongoing contact and that contact has been hostile. … Therefore, because of the ongoing hostile relationship that was not just a single incident between the defendant and the victim, it is foreseeable under the circumstances to impose the cost of the security system.”

The judgment was affirmed.