PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court ruled this week that the family of a murdered 6-year-old boy can seek restitution for the child’s future lost wages, setting a significant precedent in victims’ rights cases.
The decision came in the case of E.H. v. Hon. Slayton, et al., where the child’s half-sister, referred to in court records as Elise, requested over $3.3 million in restitution from Jason Conlee—the boy’s uncle—who pleaded guilty to child abuse and endangerment related to the boy’s death.
What the ruling means for victims’ families
The high court found that restitution for future lost wages is allowed under the Arizona Constitution’s Victims’ Bill of Rights, as long as the amount sought is grounded in reason—not speculation.
“The amount Conlee should pay must be reasonably related to the anticipated loss,” Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote in the court’s opinion.
While Conlee’s legal team argued that any estimate of future wages was too speculative, Elise claimed her brother’s potential earnings had a real economic value and was willing to accept a lower restitution estimate of $919,598.
Why the case went to the Supreme Court
Lower courts had rejected Elise’s request, ruling that future lost wages for a murdered child were too uncertain to qualify for restitution. But the Supreme Court reversed those decisions, saying the claim satisfied the so-called Wilkinson test, a three-part standard requiring restitution claims to:
Be economic in nature,
Result from the defendant’s crime, and
Be directly caused by the criminal conduct.
The justices remanded the case back to the superior court to assess whether Elise can sufficiently prove the amount she’s seeking.
This ruling marks a broader interpretation of Arizona’s restitution laws and could impact how similar claims are handled in future criminal cases involving child victims.
