Restitution: priority.

Stefani’s Restitution First Act weaves victims’ rights directly into the payment hierarchy by elevating restitution to a priority status in criminal cases, requiring that a restitution order be paid before all fines, restitution fines, penalty assessments, and other fees. The authors state that crime victims have a constitutional right to restitution and that restitution should be satisfied before any other debt owed by a defendant, codifying this priority as the Restitution First Act.

Under the bill, in every conviction, the court would order restitution to the victim for economic losses and would also impose a separate restitution fine, with the same framework for calculating the fine as in current law. Felony restitution fines would be set within a range (for example, minimums and maximums tied to offense type), and the court may determine the amount of the fine based on factors such as the seriousness of the offense, but a defendant’s inability to pay would not justify omitting the minimum restitution fine. The restitution order would be enforceable as a civil judgment and would be paid prior to other fines or fees, with funds potentially applied from seized assets when permissible. The bill also specifies that the restitution amount should reflect proven losses—including medical expenses, wage losses, and certain noneconomic losses—and may include interest at 10 percent per year, as well as expenses incurred by victims and costs of collection.

The bill expands the procedural and administrative framework surrounding restitution: victims may testify by two-way audio and video transmission at hearings related to restitution amounts, and the court must accept a detailed financial disclosure from the defendant to aid in determining collectibility. It requires ongoing disclosure of assets and updates prior to release from probation or completion of a conditional sentence, with a mechanism to route restitution payment information to the Victim Compensation Board and other relevant entities. The measure preserves the core provisions that restitution be paid to the victim and that, where appropriate, restitution funds remain available to satisfy judgments even after probation ends, while embedding a strong priority rule within probation conditions.

Together, the provisions reflect a policy aim to align restitution with victims’ constitutional rights by structuring its payment as the foremost obligation in the slate of court-imposed financial obligations. The approach maintains the existing restitution framework—including detailed loss categories, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability checks—while foregrounding restitution over other monetary obligations and clarifying the procedural steps for calculating, collecting, and enforcing those payments. The broader context involves reinforcing victim reparations within the criminal justice process and detailing the administrative steps necessary to support that priority in practice.