In Re Christopher R.

ROBERT L. KARWACKI, Judge (retired), Specially Assigned. Between June 17, 1995 and August 1, 1995, the Petitioner, Christopher R., then 15 years old, broke into Middlesex Elementary School and stole one 1994 Macintosh computer, along with a 1994 Apple CD Rom internal drive and various upgrades and memory that had been purchased between 1992 and 1995. Christopher R. was charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County with being a delinquent child, and a complaint was filed against him and his parents, seeking restitution for the stolen equipment. At a hearing before the juvenile master of that court, after the juvenile was adjudged ⁴¹⁰ to be a delinquent child, the parties agreed to an immediate disposition hearing.

At disposition, the juvenile and his parents objected to the use of an itemized list prepared by an administrator of the school of the stolen equipment showing the date of purchase, purchase price and replacement cost of each of the stolen items. The reason for their objection was that the list did not reflect the fair market value of the stolen property as of the date of the theft. That objection was overruled, and the master recommended that restitution should be based upon the cost of the equipment which had to be purchased to replace the stolen property. The total replacement cost was $5,415.00.

Accordingly, the master recommended restitution in the amount of $5,000, being the maximum amount permitted under the applicable statute. The juvenile and his parents excepted to the master’s recommendation as to the amount of restitution. Before the court, the State conceded that it had been error to use replacement cost as the basis for a restitution judgment but that the original purchase prices for the stolen property should be used instead. They totaled $5,049.

The circuit court overruled the exceptions even though no evidence of fair market value of the stolen property had been produced, reasoning: “Purchase price was $5049. I have absolutely no way to know what rate of depreciation should be used for computers, so I think I am bound by the, the purchase prices in the various years that are listed. The oldest unit is from 1992 and the newest is from 1995. * * sfc That, and those are the rules that I’m going to use to establish the amount for restitution. And I establish that amount as $5049 ...

The limit is $5000, so the exceptions taken are overruled. I find that the Master appropriately ordered restitution in amount of $5,000.” ⁴¹¹ The Court of Special Appeals affirmed that judgment in an unreported opinion. We issued a writ of certiorari on the petition of the juvenile and his parents. At the time of the delinquent act from which the issue in the instant case arises, restitution in a juvenile court was governed by Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.).

Section 3-829 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. It provided in pertinent part: “(a)(1) The court may enter a judgment of restitution against the parent of a child, the child, or both in any case in which the court finds a child has committed a delinquent act and during or as a result of the commission of that delinquent act has: (i) Stolen, damaged, destroyed, converted, unlawfully obtained, or substantially decreased the value of the property of another; * * * (c)(1) A judgment rendered under this section may not exceed: (i) As to the property stolen, destroyed, converted, or unlawfully obtained, the lesser of the fair market value of the property or $5,000.” (Emphasis added). 1 The terms of this statute unambiguously