context: The state argues for a more expansive interpretation of the statute, asserting that the costs of attending the trial resulted from the crime because the expenses would not have been incurred "but for" Palubicki's commission of the crime.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 2004 WL 556946, at *3
citation_a.parenthetical: ruling that restitution is appropriate when a victim would not have incurred expense "but for" the unlawful activity
citation_a.sentence: See In re Welfare of D.D.G., 532 N.W.2d 279, 282-83 (Minn.App.1995) (ruling that because a reward offer would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s bomb threat, the school district was entitled to restitution); see also State v. DeGrote, No. A03-908, 2004 WL 556946, at *3 (Minn. App. Mar.23, 2004) (ruling that restitution is appropriate when a victim would not have incurred expense “but for” the unlawful activity).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 532 N.W.2d 279, 282-83
citation_b.parenthetical: ruling that because a reward offer would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's bomb threat, the school district was entitled to restitution
citation_b.sentence: See In re Welfare of D.D.G., 532 N.W.2d 279, 282-83 (Minn.App.1995) (ruling that because a reward offer would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s bomb threat, the school district was entitled to restitution); see also State v. DeGrote, No. A03-908, 2004 WL 556946, at *3 (Minn. App. Mar.23, 2004) (ruling that restitution is appropriate when a victim would not have incurred expense “but for” the unlawful activity).