Effective October 1, 2025, Florida has significantly changed how courts handle restitution in criminal cases. The amendment to Fla. Stat. § 775.089 expands the scope of restitution, allowing judges to order payment for damages not only caused “directly or indirectly” by the offense—but also for damages “related to the defendant’s criminal episode.”
This change could have a major impact on leaving the scene of an accident cases, where restitution has long been a disputed issue.
What the Law Was Before the Amendment
For decades, Florida law required a clear and direct causal link between the offense and the damages before restitution could be ordered. Under the old version of § 775.089, courts could only impose restitution for losses “caused directly or indirectly” by the defendant’s offense.
In the landmark case State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court held that restitution could not be ordered for damages arising from the accident itself when the defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The reasoning was simple: the damage to the vehicles occurred before the crime of leaving the scene. Because leaving the scene did not cause that damage, restitution was improper.
The Court made it clear that restitution required a causal connection between the crime and the loss—not just a general relationship between the events. Subsequent cases such as Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2002), and Small v. State, 587 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), reaffirmed that position.
What the New Law Says
Under the amended § 775.089, effective October 1, 2025, Florida courts are now permitted to order restitution for damages that are “related to the defendant’s criminal episode.”
This new language gives the court’s discretion. It means that even if the damages were not directly or indirectly caused by the specific act of leaving the scene, restitution could still be ordered if those damages are considered part of the same criminal episode.
In plain terms, this could allow restitution for the damage from the crash itself—even if the defendant’s offense was only leaving the scene afterward.
How This Changes the Landscape for Defendants in Leaving the Scene cases.
This amendment represents a major shift from the precedent set in State v. Williams. Before, defense attorneys could argue—often successfully—that restitution for vehicle damage was improper in a leaving-the-scene case because that loss occurred before the crime.
Now, prosecutors may argue that those same damages are “related to the criminal episode” and therefore qualify for restitution under the new statute. Judges will have to determine whether the connection between the crash and the crime is strong enough to justify restitution.
What This Means for Florida Drivers
For defendants accused of leaving the scene of an accident in Florida, this change could lead to larger restitution orders—including repair costs, towing fees, or even other property losses that courts might find “related” to the incident.
It’s more important than ever to have an experienced Florida criminal defense attorney who understands both the old case law and the new statutory language. Strategic arguments about causation, foreseeability, and the limits of “criminal episode” will be key to protecting your rights and minimizing potential restitution.
Contact Mesic Law
If you’ve been charged with leaving the scene of an accident, call Mesic Law at (904) 615-8950.