Donations made to a victim’s crowdfunding page do not necessarily reduce the defendant’s obligation to pay crime victim restitution, Colorado’s second-highest court concluded on Thursday.

Under state law, crime victim compensation boards reimburse victims for certain monetary losses, including funeral costs, medical expenditures, and property damage. Prosecutors may, in turn, seek restitution payments from the defendant whose conduct caused the losses.

However, the boards can deduct from their payments any money that the victim receives directly from the defendant, from the state or federal government, and from “a private source.”

After Harlan Nelson Eddington pleaded guilty in Douglas County to vehicular manslaughter for killing Molly Sadler, the prosecution sought $5,487 in restitution for the crime victim compensation board’s payments for Sadler’s funeral and burial expenses.

The defense objected, pointing to a GoFundMe page that raised at least $2,608 for costs related to Sadler’s funeral and her dog. The victim is only entitled to compensation from the board that “has not been paid for by a collateral source,” wrote public defender Lauren Sposa.

Chief Judge Ryan Stuart declined to deduct the crowdfunded amounts from the requested restitution, reasoning that it was unclear whether the money paid for the same expenditures of the crime victim compensation board.

“I don’t know that that money was raised for funeral expenses and given to the family and said, ‘… This money that we raised can only be used for funeral expenses,’ or if the victim’s family (could) take that money and just go to the spa because they feel sad one day,” he said. “Without evidence before the court that there were restrictions placed on the use of these funds … I can’t make those findings.”

Eddington appealed, arguing the GoFundMe page explicitly indicated the money was intended to cover funeral expenses.

“Here, there was no evidence that Sadler’s family was limited by any agreement as to how to apportion the donated funds between arguably covered expenses and uncovered expenses,” countered Senior Assistant Attorney General Brittany Limes Zehner.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with the government.

“Eddington doesn’t direct us to any language in the restitution statute or the compensation act (and we can find none) that requires a court to reduce the amount of restitution simply because a victim received a monetary gift,” wrote Judge Katharine E. Lum in the Feb. 19 opinion.

She cited three prior appellate decisions involving a defendant’s obligation to pay crime victim restitution in light of insurance company settlements resulting from vehicle crashes. While the Court of Appeals had concluded defendants may be entitled to deductions when the settlements clearly duplicate the costs that crime victim compensation boards would cover, that was not true with no-strings-attached settlements.

Similarly, “absent evidence that the donated funds are required to be used in one or more specific ways, there are no strings attached to donations or other monetary gifts,” Lum wrote.

The case is People v. Eddington.