Lisa Gilpin v. Hon. harris/marcos Martinez

Summary

The court held that a defendant adjudged guilty except insane is treated as criminally responsible for conduct causing or threatening death or serious injury and therefore may be ordered to pay victim restitution. It reached that conclusion by construing the constitutional term "convicted" and examining the text, history, effects, and consequences of Arizona's guilty-except-insane statutory scheme. The court overruled the contrary prior decision, declined to consider an unpreserved constitutional challenge, and remanded for determination of Gilpin's eligibility and the amount and conditions of restitution.