ÿWPC" µÆb°E’Hü€Hü þDEQ™ìˆM|f"f®û|ª â8{…øUW³¡zi2ÌOïᘷÖ~} ÞoIyº¤ÏæàÔxð—]U?àqZ“&òÊ5þšJ}?,Ö W —|×OýŠlgÑò=1ü-ºEðQ´ô.é¥y’È“äIщ,´‹qBºuþnÞÕfÈk,^Ïò®­2’ ¥ˆvc(cŽ_wæ@‚•´Ð«°KF¥´Âå±¶…Jvo’kÇ~sù’U»ê©•¹_z;8ùÖ$sqˆe QáOÎç[Ôg÷KSxñ(>)>'LüŒþ*n–uóu+0OC Fˆªu’T¸UJ‡ƒÚû“Í0Ë=V*rÂ÷ÿ˜¨>•¼Yy¸ÓFŒ…¸l³äPŠÈæÔ\¨ž‰A/&|B¢{}rš„ûªWÌx-¶‡MµóÒ«³Cv9Þå¶Gˆ–80ŸìmŽ|â[Ž"d9ÿ i€ï¨YžgXqòAC%sŠÏ ™RÚ=UlÜw!@$eØŸ¦\tì VÈX«ÀA~ÅúAþq*©¢¶–ÔnRÞkºÍÞ] ºû‚Ô${¨ZJ­+£)•õ¼£ÑCÞý5#!æUN %U 0e[w@À4# m%b< 0DD½ˆÀE ¡ ¦A¾UNÿ£MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Aðð B 0»ª 0ee D+æ 0KÆ\˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(=4Ø$¡¡ÓÓÔ€,Š…‹XXÔÓ  Ó 1U2{34E567v8r9:«Mq)x/)` €Memo-a3|x:ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ³Ý ƒ/õ,$ÝÓÓÔ€Šæ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›At€the€adjudicatory€hearing,€in€finding€¢Levon£€delinquent€of€unauthorized€use,€theÐ ° Ðmaster€found€that€¢Levon£€ð ðat€least€.€.€.€should€have€known€the€car€was€stolen,ðð€only€laterÏindicating,€at€the€restitution€hearing,€that€¢Levon£€had€actually€known€that€the€car€was€stolen.€ÏClearly,€this€discrepancy€is€concerning.€€Unfortunately,€however,€Petitioner€has€not€raisedÏthe€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€basis€for€the€finding€of€delinquency€on€appeal,€so€we€mustÏassume€that€it€is€valid.€€òòAccord€óómaj.€op.€at€3€n.1. ¶Ý ƒ/õ,$ÝÓÓÔ€Šæ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€docket€entry€for€March€25,€1997€ð"ð€the€date€of€the€restitution€hearing€ð"ð€showsÐ ° Ðthat€the€restitution€order€pertaining€to€the€$443€ran€only€against€¢Levon£€but€that€the€judgmentÏof€restitution€for€$1,690€in€favor€of€State€Farm€Insurance€Co.€was€against€both€¢Levon£€andÏpetitioner.€€A€docket€entry€for€September€2,€1997€records€a€ð ðCorrected€court€orderðð€showingÏthe€reverse€ð"ð€that€the€restitution€order€for€$443€was€against€¢Levon£€and€petitioner€and€thatÏthe€judgment€for€$1,690€was€against€petitioner€alone.€ —Ý ƒ/õ,$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠЄ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›The€Washington€restitution€statute,€unlike€ðð€808,€expressly€makes€all€participantsÐ ° Ðð ðjointly€and€severally€liable.ðð€€òòSee€òòóóWash.€Rev.€Code€óóðð€13.40.190(1)€(2000).€€Nonetheless,Ð ° Ðthe€Washington€Court€of€Appealsðð€analysis€on€the€relationship€between€the€causationÏelement€of€the€restitution€statute€and€the€¢foreseeability£€of€the€resulting€damage€is€stillÏapplicable€here.€€In€addition,€as€the€Maryland€unauthorized€use€statute€makes€aiders€andÏabettors€guilty€as€principles€for€the€purpose€of€punishment,€òòsee€óóMaryland€Code€(1957,€1996Ð °  ÐRepl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€Art.€27,€ðð€349,€¢Levon£€is€individually€responsible€for€the€damage€toÏthe€vehicle€that€resulted€from€its€unauthorized€use. ØØ 7Ý ƒ/õ,$ÝÓÓÔ€ŠЄ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ݛԇXBX‹ŠЄÔÔ#†ŠЄ‹XXB“#ÔÔ‡‹Є‹‹ŠЄÔÔ#†ŠЄ‹‹‹ЄÕ#ÔAt€the€adjudicatory€hearing,€in€finding€¢Levon£€delinquent€of€unauthorized€use,€theÐ ° Ðmaster€found€that€¢Levon£€ð ðat€least€.€.€.€should€have€known€the€car€was€stolen,ðð€only€laterÏindicating,€at€the€restitution€hearing,€that€¢Levon£€had€actually€known€that€the€car€was€stolen.€ÏClearly,€this€discrepancy€is€concerning.€€Unfortunately,€however,€Petitioner€has€not€raisedÏthe€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€basis€for€the€finding€of€delinquency€on€appeal,€so€we€mustÏassume€that€it€is€valid.€€òòAccord€óómaj.€op.€at€3€n.1.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ™Ý ƒ/õ,$ÝÓÓÔ€Šæ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€The€conduct€leading€to€the€charges€against€¢Levon£€occurred€on€October€17,€1996.€Ð ° ÐAt€that€time,€the€provisions€allowing€restitution€against€a€child€and€the€child's€parents€forÏdamage€caused€as€a€result€of€delinquent€acts€committed€by€the€child€were€codified€in€ðð€808Ïof€Article€27.€€In€1997,€those€provisions€were€substantially€rewritten€and€placed€in€ðð€807.€ÏWe€agree€with€the€parties€that€this€case€must€be€decided€on€the€basis€of€the€law€stated€inÏðð808€as€it€existed€in€October,€1996.4032 I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK d(k(2õ,$¤¤Ý ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€ŠЄ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(Y3]T$££Ý ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€ŠЄ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Ý ƒ4Ø!ÝÓÓÔ€Šæ‹XXÔÓ  ÓÝ  Ý›ØØÓÓÑ  ÑÌòòIn€re:€¢Levon£€A.óóÐ ° ÐNo.€10,€Sept.€Term,€2000ÌÌParent€of€juvenile€who€committed€delinquent€act€of€unauthorized€use€of€automobile€notÏliable€for€restitution€for€damage€done€to€car€if€juvenile€(1)€did€not€participate€in€initial€theftÏor€appropriation€of€car,€(2)€did€nothing,€directly€or€indirectly,€to€cause€car€to€be€damaged,Ïand€(3)€was€found€culpable€only€by€virtue€of€having€become€and€remained€a€passengerÏknowing€(or€having€reason€to€know)€that€car€was€stolen.Ð  °   ÐÓjÓÑ„°ÑÑX°ÑÒX°ÒØØÑ8€ÄsXXd슊d8ÑÑ  ÑÓÓCircuit€Court€for€Baltimore€CityÐ „ ÐJuvenile€Causes€DivisionÌFile€No.€163998ÌÒͰÒÔ‡XÄsX‹ŠæÔà@''-&àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€MARYLANDÔ#†Šæ‹XXÄsŸ#ԈР„ ÐÌà0 % àà Í àà@üü;&%€%%€%àóóNo.€10ˆÐ pì ÐÌà@??4&àSeptember€Term,€2000ˆÌ______________________________________ÌÌà@&&>&àˆÌÌÌà@ÛÛ7&àIN€RE:€¢LEVON£€A.ˆÌÌÌà@&&>&àˆÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌÌà % àBell,€C.J.Ìà % à¢Eldridge£Ì€€€€€€€€*¢Rodowsky£Ìà % àRakerÌà % àWilnerÌà % àCathellÌà % à¢Karwacki£,€Robert€L.€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(retired,€specially€assigned),ÌÌà % àà } à€€€JJ.Ì______________________________________ÌÌà@ww4&àOpinion€by€Wilner,€J.ˆÌà@  /&àRaker€and€œñ0ñCathellñ0ñ,›€JJ.,€dissentˆÌ______________________________________ÌÌà % àFiled:€€€November€17,€2000ÌÌ*¢Rodowsky£,€J.,€now€retired,€participated€in€theÌhearing€and€conference€of€this€case€while€anÌactive€member€of€this€Court;€after€being€recalledÌpursuant€to€the€Constitution,€Article€IV,ÌSection€¢3A£,€he€also€participated€in€the€decisionÌand€adoption€of€this€opinion.Ð  p/ì+,ä ÐÒ°ÍÒѰ„ÑѰXÑÒ°XÒÑ€ ÑÑ  ÑÓÓñ7ñÑ€÷*Ññ7ñà  àThe€issue€before€us€is€whether€the€parent€of€a€child€who€committed€the€delinquent€actÏof€unauthorized€use€of€an€automobile,€in€violation€of€Maryland€Code€(1957,€1996€Repl.ÏVol.),€Article€27,€ðð€349,€€may€be€held€liable€for€restitution€for€damage€done€to€the€car€if€theÏchild€(1)€did€not€participate€in€the€initial€theft€or€appropriation€of€the€car,€(2)€did€nothing,Ïdirectly€or€indirectly,€to€cause€the€car€to€be€damaged,€and€(3)€was€found€culpable€only€byÏvirtue€of€his€having€become€and€remained€a€passenger€in€the€car€knowing€(or€having€reasonÏto€know)€that€it€was€stolen.€€Twice,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€answered€that€question€inÏthe€affirmative.€€We€disagree€and€shall€reverse.ÌÌà@èè%ìàòòBACKGROUNDóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àOn€the€morning€of€October€17,€1996,€H.€Edward€Andrews,€III€drove€to€the€DistrictÏCourt€building€on€North€Avenue€in€Baltimore€City.€€Although€he€locked€and€secured€his€car,Ïwhen€he€returned€less€than€an€hour€later,€the€vehicle€was€gone.€€Evidence€presented€beforeÏa€juvenile€court€master€showed€that€15„year€old€Antonio€M.€took€the€car,€apparently€byÏbreaking€a€window,€overcoming€the€ð ðClubðð€security€device,€and€ð ðpoppingðð€the€ignitionÏdevice.€€While€driving€the€car,€he€saw€petitionerððs€son,€¢Levon£€A.,€walking€home€from€schoolÏand€offered€him€a€ride.€€¢Levon£€got€into€the€car.€€Around€2:15€that€afternoon,€as€the€boysÏcontinued€on€their€journey,€following€a€stop€at€Antonioððs€home,€a€police€officer€observedÏthe€vehicle€and€noticed€that€it€contained€the€two€boys€who€were€too€short€to€see€over€theÏdashboard€and€steering€wheel.€€After€learning€that€the€car€had€been€reported€stolen,€he€beganÏfollowing€it.€€Antonio€observed€the€police€car€and€made€an€effort€to€elude€it.€€The€chaseÐ °,((ä Ðended€when€Antonio€entered€a€dead„end€street,€attempted€to€make€a€quick€turn€into€a€privateÏdriveway,€and€ran€into€some€shrubbery€and€a€fence.€€Both€boys€attempted€to€flee€but€wereÏapprehended.€€When€Mr.€Andrews€recovered€the€vehicle€at€the€police€impound€lot,€heÏnoticed€not€only€the€damage€from€the€collision,€to€the€front€and€right€side,€but€also€that€theÏignition€device€was€missing,€glass€from€the€right€passenger€window€littered€the€seat€andÏfloor,€and€a€number€of€items€ð"ð€audio€tapes,€a€blanket,€€the€ð ðClubðð€device€used€to€secure€theÏcar,€an€ashtray€with€$70€in€money,€and€a€mug€ð"ð€were€missing.Ìà  à¢Levon£€was€charged,€as€a€delinquent€child,€with€a€variety€of€theft„related€andÏmalicious€destruction€offenses.€€Among€other€things,€the€petition€sought€restitution€againstÏ¢Levon£ððs€mother,€petitioner€here.€€At€the€adjudicatory€hearing€before€the€master,€¢Levon£Ïcontended€that€he€did€not€realize€that€the€vehicle€had€been€stolen€until€he€saw€the€police€inÏpursuit.€€According€to€him,€he€simply€accepted€a€ride€home€from€school€from€a€friend,€whoÏhe€believed€was€old€enough€to€drive.€€He€said€that€he€thought€the€car€was€owned€by€one€ofÏAntonioððs€relatives.€€He€further€noted€that€once€they€left€Antonioððs€house,€Antonio€told€himÏthat€the€car€was€stolen,€but€he€thought€Antonio€was€just€joking.€€After€listening€to€theÏevidence,€the€master€concluded€that€only€one€of€the€eight€counts€was€sustained€ð"ð€Count€4,Ïcharging€unauthorized€use€in€violation€of€Maryland€Code,€Article€27,€ðð€349,€òòi.eóó,€that€¢Levon£Ð °$  Ðtook€and€carried€the€vehicle€away€with€the€intent€to€deprive€the€owner,€temporarily,€of€theÏuse€and€possession€of€the€property.€€In€making€his€finding€as€to€the€unauthorized€use,€theÏmaster€found€that€¢Levon£€had€been€told€by€Antonio€that€the€car€was€stolen.€€The€masterÐ °*&& Ðdisbelieved€¢Levon£ððs€assertion€that€he€did€not€see€the€missing€ignition€or€broken€window€andÏconcluded€that€¢Levon£,€ð ðat€least€in€this€matter€òòshould€have€knownóó€the€car€was€stolen.ðð€Ð ° Ð(Emphasis€added.)Ìà  àEvidence€taken€at€a€restitution€hearing€held€a€month€later€established€that€State€FarmÏInsurance€Company€had€paid€$1,690€to€repair€the€damage€to€the€vehicle€and€that€the€valueÏof€the€items€taken€from€the€car€was€$443.€€Citing€òòIn€Re€Jason€W.óó,€94€Md.€App.€731,€619Ð °  ÐA.2d€163,€òòcert.€grantedóó,€331€Md.€178,€626€A.2d€967,€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€332€Md.€509,€632Ð °  ÐA.2d€767€(1993),€and€òòIn€Re€Jose€S.óó,€304€Md.€396,€499€A.2d€936€(1985),€petitioner€arguedÐ ° Ðthat€she€could€not€be€held€responsible€for€either€item€of€damage,€as€¢Levon£€had€not€beenÏshown€to€have€caused€any€of€those€losses.€€The€master€responded:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€real€question€is€why€weððre€here€right€now€talking€aboutÏthis€money.€€Why?€€Because€this€young€man€hopped€into€aÏvehicle€òòthat€he€knew€was€stolenóó.€€Thatððs€the€reason€weððre€hereÐ ° Ðtoday.€€No€other€reason.€€And€now€somebody€has€got€to€payÏsome€money.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓÌà  àAfter€giving€some€consideration€to€petitionerððs€circumstances,€the€master€ordered€thatÏ¢Levon£€pay€restitution€in€the€amount€of€$443€„„€the€value€of€the€missing€items€„„€to€Mr.ÏAndrews€and€gave€him€18€months€within€which€to€make€the€payment.€€The€master€alsoÏâ âentered€a€$1,690€judgment€of€restitution€in€favor€of€State€Farm€and€against€¢Levon£€andÐ °&"" Ðpetitioner,€jointly€and€severally.¢×ƒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€When€asked€by€petitioner€what€ð ðcausal€linkðð€the€masterÐ ° Ðâ âfound€between€¢Levon£ððs€actions€and€the€damage,€the€master€replied€that€he€had€ð ðalreadyÏexplained€that.ðð€€When€asked€how€¢Levon£,€at€age€14€with€no€employment,€was€expected€toÏpay€$443€to€Mr.€Andrews€within€the€18„month€period,€the€master€indicated€that€he€expectedÏ¢Levon£€to€ð ðuse€his€ingenuityðð€and€to€obtain€employment€when€he€became€15.Ìà  àPetitioner€filed€exceptions€which,€after€a€hearing,€the€court€overruled.€€Relying€on€òòInÐ °  ÐRe€Gloria€T.óó,€73€Md.€App.€28,€532€A.2d€1095€(1987),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€311€Md.€718,€537€A.2dÐ °  Ð272€€(1988),€the€court€concluded€that,€in€a€case€of€unauthorized€use,€ð ðoccupying€a€stolen€carÏwithout€the€permission€and€consent€of€the€owner€and€the€car€sustains€damages,€all€personsÏfound€on€or€about€the€car€are,€in€fact,€chargeable€as€principals€and€all€are€equally€liable.ððÌà  àThe€Court€of€Special€Appeals€agreed€in€part€and€disagreed€in€part€with€theÏconclusions€of€the€juvenile€court.€€òòIn€Re€¢Levon£€Aóó.,€124€Md.€App.€103,€720€A.2d€1232Ð ° Ð(1998).€€It€found€neither€òòJason€W.€óónor€òòGloria€T.óó€controlling,€and€determined€thatÐ ° Ð(1)restitution€for€the€damage€done€to€the€car€while€¢Levon£€was€a€passenger€in€it€wasÏpermissible€based€on€¢Levon£ððs€aider€and€abettor€status€under€the€unauthorized€use€statute,Ï(2)restitution€for€damages€caused€before€¢Levon£€became€a€passenger€was€not€authorized,€andÐ °" Ð(3)€in€light€of€the€evidence€regarding€petitionerððs€financial€circumstances€and€ability€to€pay,Ïthe€court€abused€its€discretion€in€requiring€her€to€pay€for€all€of€the€losses.€€In€that€regard,€theÏappellate€court€held€that€ð ð[¢c]learly£,€Ms.€A.€had€no€ability€to€comply€with€this€particularÏrestitution€order,€unless€she€sacrificed€the€well€being€of€her€children.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€147,€720€A.2dÐ °  Ðat€1253.Ìà  àThe€court€noted€that€the€unauthorized€use€statute,€Article€27,€ðð€349,€made€aiders€andÏabettors€equally€guilty€with€the€principal€perpetrator€and€thus€ð ðequally€liable€for€the€fullÏrange€of€penalties€¢pr[e]scribed£€by€the€statute.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€139,€720€A.2d€at€1249.€€One€of€theÐ ° Ðpenalties€provided€for€in€ðð€349€was€that€the€offender€was€to€restore€the€property€taken,€or,Ïif€unable€to€do€so,€pay€the€owner€the€full€value€of€it.€€Accordingly,€the€court€held€that€theÏJuvenile€Court€ð ðlawfully€awarded€restitution€for€those€damages€caused€during€or€as€a€resultÏof€the€unauthorized€use.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ° Ðà  àThe€problem€noted€by€the€appellate€court€was€that€part€of€the€restitution€was€forÏdamages€that€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€initial€theft,€in€which€¢Levon£€had€no€part,€rather€thanÏthe€unauthorized€use.€€In€particular,€the€court€referred€to€the€cost€of€repairing€the€ignition€andÏthe€broken€glass,€which€arose€from€the€initial€theft,€as€well€as€the€value€of€the€items€ofÏpersonalty€ð ðthat€most€likely€were€damaged€or€stolen€in€connection€with€the€theft.ðð€€òòIdóó.€atÐ °$  Ð136„37,€720€A.2d€at€1248.€€As€to€those€elements,€the€court€held€that,€ð ð[¢g]iven£€the€findingÏthat€¢Levon£€did€not€commit€the€theft,€we€agree€with€appellants€that€they€cannot€be€orderedÏto€pay€restitution€for€damages€directly€resulting€from€the€theft.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€137,€720€A.2d€atÐ °*&& Ð1248.€€Because,€in€its€restitution€judgment,€the€juvenile€court€did€not€differentiate€betweenÏdamages€sustained€in€connection€with€the€theft€and€those€which,€in€the€appellate€courtððsÏview,€occurred€during€or€as€a€result€of€the€unauthorized€use,€the€Court€of€Special€AppealsÏvacated€the€order€of€restitution€and€remanded€for€the€juvenile€court€(1)€to€exclude€anyÏdamages€relating€solely€to€the€theft,€and€(2)€to€consider€an€order€of€restitution€commensurateÏwith€petitionerððs€ability€to€pay.€€òòId.óó€at€141,€147,€720€A.2d€at€1250,€1253.Ð °  Ðà  àAt€the€hearing€on€remand,€the€State€conceded€that€$498€of€the€$1,690€claimed€byÏState€Farm€related€to€damage€arising€solely€from€the€theft,€leaving€the€insurance€claim€atÏ$1,192.€€It€later€agreed€to€reduce€the€$443€restitution€order€running€in€favor€of€Mr.€AndrewsÏby€$80.€€Petitioner€moved€to€dismiss€the€entire€claim€on€the€ground€that€the€State€had€failedÏto€prove€any€causal€connection€between€¢Levon£ððs€conduct€and€State€Farmððs€claim.€€The€courtÏdenied€the€motion,€believing€that€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€had€already€rejected€thatÏargument€and€had€remanded€the€case€for€the€limited€purpose€of€excising€from€the€restitutionÏorder€those€items€arising€solely€from€the€theft€and€determining€the€extent€to€which€petitionerÏwas€able€to€afford€to€pay€restitution.€€Evidence€was€then€offered€regarding€petitionerððsÏfinancial€circumstances.€€In€its€final€ruling,€the€court€left€the€restitution€order€against€¢Levon£Ïintact,€concluding€that€the€only€issue€before€it€dealt€with€the€restitution€to€be€paid€byÏpetitioner.€€In€that€regard,€it€concluded€that€she€could€afford€to€pay€no€more€than€$750€and,Ïon€June€16,€1999,€entered€a€restitution€judgment€against€her€and€in€favor€of€Mr.€AndrewsÏ(rather€than€State€Farm)€for€$750.Ð °*&& Ðà  àPetitioner€and€¢Levon£€again€appealed.€€They€made€no€complaint€about€the€newÏcalculations€or€the€òòamountóó€of€the€restitution,€but€simply€asked€the€Court€of€Special€AppealsÐ ° Ðto€reconsider€its€earlier€ruling.€€That,€the€court€refused€to€do,€and,€in€the€absence€of€any€otherÏalleged€error,€affirmed€the€judgment.€€We€granted€òòcertiorarióó€to€determine€the€broader€issueÐ °  Ðtwice€raised€in€both€the€trial€and€appellate€courts€ð"ð€whether€any€restitution€order€againstÏpetitioner€is€permissible€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.ÌÌà@hh%ìàòòDISCUSSIONóóˆÐ ° Ðà@ŠŠ!ìàò òòòPreliminary€Issuesó óóóˆÐ ° Ðà  àBefore€discussing€the€substantive€issues€in€the€case,€there€are€two€preliminary€mattersÏworthy€of€comment.Ìà  àFirst,€there€seems€to€be€some€ambiguity€in€the€record€as€to€who,€in€the€end,€has€beenÏordered€to€pay€what€to€whom.€€As€we€indicated,€the€court€initially,€in€March,€1997,€directedÏ¢Levon£€to€pay€$443€to€Mr.€Andrews,€over€a€period€of€18€months,€and€entered€a€judgmentÏagainst€him€and€his€mother€and€in€favor€of€State€Farm€for€$1,690.€€In€September,€1997,€aÏð ðcorrected€orderðð€was€filed€that€directed€¢Levon£€and€petitioner€to€pay€the€$443€to€Mr.ÏAndrews€and€made€the€$1,690€judgment€in€favor€of€State€Farm€run€against€only€petitioner.€ÏOn€May€20,€1999,€following€the€hearing€on€remand,€the€court€stated€that€the€restitution€orderÏagainst€¢Levon£,€for€$443,€would€remain€intact,€but€it€entered€a€new€judgment€in€the€amountÏof€$750€against€petitioner€but€in€favor€of€petitioner.€€On€June€16,€1999,€the€court€correctedÐ °*&& Ðòòthatóó€obvious€error€but€committed€another€when€it€made€the€$750€judgment€against€petitioner€Ð ° Ðrun€in€favor€of€Mr.€Andrews,€rather€than€State€Farm.Ìà  àNo€one€has€complained€about€that€aspect€of€the€order.€€We€cannot€help€but€observe,Ïhowever,€that€the€loss€claimed€by€Mr.€Andrews€never€exceeded€$443€and€that,€inÏconformance€with€the€first€mandate€of€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€the€State€stipulated€toÏan€$80€reduction€in€that€amount.€€On€its€face,€without€regard€to€any€other€error,€the€finalÏjudgment€entered€was€incorrect.€€The€apparent€intent€was€to€leave€the€restitution€orderÏagainst€¢Levon£,€in€favor€of€Mr.€Andrews,€alone,€and€to€deal€only€with€the€judgment€againstÏpetitioner€in€favor€of€State€Farm.€€The€final€order€in€the€case,€however,€has€the€judgment€forÏ$750€running€in€favor€of€Mr.€Andrews.€€For€the€reasons€to€follow,€that€ð ðglitchðð€will€becomeÏmoot.Ìà  àThe€second€preliminary€matter€is€a€procedural€one€raised€by€the€State.€€It€notes,Ïcorrectly,€that€the€substantive€determination€that€restitution€was€permissible€for€damage€andÏlosses€that€occurred€after€¢Levon£€became€a€passenger€in€the€car€was€made€by€the€Court€ofÏSpecial€Appeals€in€the€first€appeal€and€that€petitioner€never€sought€either€reconsideration€ofÏthat€ruling€in€accordance€with€Maryland€Rule€8„605€or€review€by€this€Court€through€aÏpetition€for€òòcertiorarióó.€€In€the€second€appeal,€it€advises,€petitioner€did€not€challenge€any€newÐ °$  Ðfinding€made€by€the€juvenile€court€upon€remand,€but€simply€asked€the€Court€of€SpecialÏAppeals€to€reconsider€and€revise€the€ruling€made€in€the€first€appeal.€€It€is€inappropriate,€theÏState€claims,€for€this€Court,€on€review€of€the€second€decision€by€the€Court€of€SpecialÐ °*&& ÐAppeals,€to€deal€with€the€substantive€issue€raised€in€the€first€appeal.€€Essentially,€the€StateÏis€invoking€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€doctrine.Ìà  àWe€dealt€with€this€issue€in€òò¢Loveday£€v.€Stateóó,€296€Md.€226,€462€A.2d€58€(1983),€whichÐ ° Ðthe€State€acknowledges€but€seeks€to€distinguish.€€In€òò¢Loveday£óó,€a€defendant,€facing€theÐ °  Ðprospect€of€a€mandatory€25„year€sentence€if€convicted€of€the€pending€charges,€was€offeredÏa€plea€bargain€under€which,€in€return€for€a€plea€of€guilty,€the€State€would€not€file€the€noticeÏrequisite€to€the€mandatory€sentence€and€would€make€no€recommendation€as€to€sentence.€ÏThe€probable€sentence€under€that€circumstance€was€expected€to€be€10€years.€€¢Loveday£Ïrejected€the€offer,€and,€upon€his€trial€and€conviction,€the€State€filed€the€notice€and€sought€theÏmandatory€25„year€sentence,€which€the€trial€court€declined€to€impose.€€On€the€Stateððs€appeal,Ïthe€Court€of€Special€Appeals€rejected€¢Loveday£ððs€argument€that€imposition€of€the€mandatoryÏsentence€after€the€State€had€offered€considerably€better€terms€would€violate€his€right€to€dueÏprocess€under€the€14th€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution€and€remanded€for€resentencing.Ð ° ÐòòState€v.€¢Loveday£óó,€48€Md.€App.€478,€427€A.2d€1087€(1981).€€The€trial€court€then€imposed€theÐ ° Ð25„year€sentence,€whereupon€¢Loveday£€appealed,€arguing€that€the€sentence€violated€his€rightÏto€due€process€under€the€Maryland€Constitution.€€Treating€the€issue€raised€in€the€secondÏappeal€as€essentially€the€same€as€that€adjudicated€in€the€first€appeal,€the€appellate€courtÏapplied€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€doctrine€and€affirmed.Ìà  àWe€granted€òòcertiorarióó€to€review€the€substantive€issue€but€dealt€first€with€whether€theÐ °($$ Ðð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€doctrine€precluded€such€review€in€this€Court.€€We€noted€that,€prior€to€theÐ °*&& Ðcreation€of€the€intermediate€appellate€court,€when€all€appeals€of€right€were€heard€by€thisÏCourt,€we€had€ð ðrefused€to€allow€successive€appeals€in€a€case€that€posited€the€same€questionsÏthat€had€been€previously€decided€by€this€Court€in€a€prior€appeal€of€the€same€caseðð€and€hadÏð ðforbade€the€parties,€on€any€subsequent€appeal€of€the€same€case,€to€raise€any€question€thatÏcould€have€been€raised€in€the€previous€appeal€on€the€record€as€it€existed€in€the€trial€court.ððÐ °  Ðòò¢Loveday£,€supraóó,€296€Md.€at€229,€462€A.2d€at€59.€€Without€disturbing€that€principle€as€itÐ °  Ðwould€apply€in€the€intermediate€appellate€court,€we€concluded€that€ð ðthe€law€of€the€caseÏdoctrine€does€not€apply€to€this€court€which€is€required€to€review€judgments€of€subordinateÏcourts.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€234,€462€A.2d€at€61.€€Thus,€although,€in€a€second€appeal,€the€Court€of€SpecialÐ ° ÐAppeals€might€properly€apply€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€doctrine€and€decline€to€review€an€issueÏthat€was,€or€could€have€been,€raised€in€an€earlier€appeal€in€the€same€case,€that€doctrine€wouldÏnot€preclude€this€Court,€in€the€second€appeal,€from€reviewing€that€issue.€€To€rule€otherwise,Ïwe€noted,€would€thwart€this€Courtððs€statutory€authority€to€review€the€judgments€of€the€CourtÏof€Special€Appeals.Ìà  àThe€State€seeks€to€distinguish€òò¢Loveday£óó€on€the€ground€that€the€issue€raised€in€theÐ °  Ðsecond€appeal€in€that€case€(State€due€process)€was€different€from€the€one€raised€in€the€firstÏappeal€(Federal€due€process).€€That€does€not€distinguish€the€case.€€Our€right€to€review€theÏjudgment€of€the€intermediate€appellate€court€exists€whether€the€issue€raised€in€the€secondÏappeal€was€the€same€as€or€different€from€that€raised€in€the€first€appeal.ÌÐ °*&& Ðà@——ìàò òòòLiability€for€Restitutionóóó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àAt€different€times€during€this€litigation,€two€sources€of€authority€for€the€restitutionÏjudgments€have€been€invoked€ð"ð€the€unauthorized€use€statute€itself,€Article€27,€ðð€349,€andÏthe€restitution€law€set€forth€in€Article€27,€ðð€808,€as€it€existed€when€the€conduct€at€issueÏoccurred.¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€At€the€Stateððs€urging,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€effectively€merged€or€ð ðpiggy„Ð °  Ðbackedðð€those€provisions€to€provide€a€basis€for€the€restitution€ordered€in€this€case.€€TheyÏcannot€be€so€combined.Ìà  àArticle€27,€ðð€349€provides,€in€relevant€part,€that€any€person,€including€any€aider€or€Ïabettor,€who€enters€upon€the€premises€of€another€and,€against€the€otherððs€will€and€consent,Ïtakes€and€carries€away€a€motor€vehicle€or€other€property,€out€of€the€otherððs€custody€or€use,Ïð ðshall€€òòupon€€conviction€thereof€in€any€of€the€courts€of€this€State€having€criminal€jurisdictionóóÐ ° Ðbe€adjudged€guilty€of€a€misdemeanor,€and€shall€restore€the€property€so€taken€and€carriedÏaway,€or,€if€unable€to€do€so,€shall€pay€to€the€owner€or€owners€the€full€value€thereofðð€and€isÏsubject€to€a€fine€of€between€$50€and€$100€and€imprisonment€for€between€six€months€andÏfour€years.€€(Emphasis€added.)Ìà  àSection€808,€dealing€specifically€with€restitution€that€may€be€ordered€by€a€juvenileÐ °" Ðcourt,€provided,€in€relevant€part,€that€the€juvenile€court€may€enter€a€judgment€of€restitutionÏagainst€a€child,€the€parent€of€a€child,€or€both,€ð ðin€any€case€in€which€the€court€finds€a€childÏhas€committed€a€delinquent€act€and€during€or€as€a€result€of€the€commission€of€that€delinquentÏact€has€.€.€.€[¢s]tolen£,€damaged,€destroyed,€converted,€unlawfully€obtained,€or€substantiallyÏdecreased€the€value€of€the€property€of€another.ððÌà  àIn€approving€the€restitution€judgment€in€this€case,€the€Court€of€Special€AppealsÏturned€first€to€ðð€349€and€concluded€that€a€person€is€guilty€of€unauthorized€use€of€a€motorÏvehicle€if,€knowing€that€the€car€has€been€stolen,€the€person€participates€in€the€continued€useÏof€it€after€the€initial€taking,€as€that€continued€participation€manifests€an€intent€to€deprive€theÏowner€of€possession€of€the€vehicle.€€That€is€a€correct€statement.€€òò¢Anello£€v.€Stateóó,€201€Md.Ð ° Ð164,€167„68,€93€A.2d€71,€72€(1952);€òòSpence€v.€Stateóó,€224€Md.€17,€19,€165€A.2d€917,€918Ð ° Ð(1960).€€The€appellate€court€then€noted€the€further€provision€in€ðð€349€requiring€a€violatorÏto€ð ðrestore€the€property€so€taken€and€carried€awayðð€or,€if€unable€to€do€so€ð ðshall€pay€theÏowner€or€owners€the€full€value€thereofðð€and€held€that€ð ð[¢o]n£€this€basis,€the€juvenile€courtÏlawfully€awarded€restitution€for€those€damages€caused€during€or€as€a€result€of€theÏunauthorized€use.ðð€€òò¢Levon£€A.óó,€òòsupraóó,€124€Md.€App.€at€139,€720€A.2d€at€1249.€€That€is€whereÐ °" Ðthe€court€went€astray.Ìà  àThere€is€no€doubt€that,€based€on€his€participation€as€a€passenger€in€the€car,€withÏknowledge€that€it€was€stolen,€¢Levon£€committed€a€violation€of€ðð€349€and€thus€committed€aÏdelinquent€act.€€Had€he€been€an€adult,€charged€and€convicted€in€criminal€court,€he€couldÐ °*&& Ðhave€been€required,€as€one€jointly€liable€with€Antonio,€to€pay€to€Mr.€Andrews€the€full€valueÏof€the€property€taken€and€carried€away.€€That€restoration/restitution€provision€does€not€applyÏto€the€situation€at€hand,€however,€for€at€least€three€reasons.€€For€one€thing,€it€requires€aÏð ðconvictionðð€in€a€court€ð ðhaving€criminal€jurisdiction.ðð€€A€finding€that€a€juvenile€committedÏa€delinquent€act€is€òònotóó€a€conviction,€and€a€juvenile€court€does€òònotóó€have€criminal€jurisdiction.€Ð °  ÐòòSeeóó€òòIn€Re€Victor€B.óó,€336€Md.€85,€92„94,€646€A.2d€1012,€1015„16€(1994).€€Moreover,€theÐ °  Ðrestoration€or€payment€provision€in€ðð€349€applies€only€to€the€person€or€persons€who€commitÏthe€criminal€act€and€does€not€authorize,€or€even€purport€to€authorize,€a€restitution€orderÏagainst€the€parents€of€such€persons.€€Finally,€the€restoration€or€payment€authorized€by€ðð€349Ïis€to€be€made€ð ðto€the€owner€or€owners,ðð€and,€to€the€extent€that,€despite€its€actual€wording,Ïthe€judgment€in€this€case€was€intended€to€run€in€favor€of€State€Farm,€rather€than€Mr.ÏAndrews,€it€would€not€be€authorized€by€ðð€349.€€Section€349€does€not€provide€a€self„¼contained€basis€for€a€restitution€order€by€a€juvenile€court€against€the€parent€of€a€child€foundÏonly€to€have€committed€a€delinquent€act.Ìà  àNor€did€ðð€808.€€As€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€pointed€out€in€òò¢In£€Re€Jason€W.,€supraóó,Ð °  Ð94€Md.€App.€731,€736„37,€619€A.2d€163,€166:ÌÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€statute€is€worded€in€the€active€voice.€€In€order€to€enter€aÏrestitution€judgment,€the€court€must€find€that€ððòòa€childóó€hasÐ °%!! Ðcommitted€a€delinquent€act€and€during€or€as€a€result€of€theÏcommission€of€that€delinquent€act€òòhas€.€.€.€damagedóó,€destroyedÐ °'## Ð.€.€.€or€substantially€decreased€the€value€of€òòthe€property€ofÐ °($$ Ðanother€óó.€.€.€.ðð€€As€worded,€three€findings€(and€evidence€toÐ °)%% Ðjustify€them)€are€required€to€support€a€restitution€judgment:Ï(1)that€the€child€committed€a€delinquent€act;€(2)€that€the€childÐ °+'' Ðdamaged,€destroyed,€or€decreased€the€value€of€anotherððsÏproperty;€and€(3)€that€such€damage,€destruction,€or€diminutionÏin€value€caused€by€the€child€occurred€during€or€as€a€result€of€theÏdelinquent€act.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌÓÓ(Emphasis€œadded.)›Ìà  àUpon€that€interpretation,€the€court€in€òòJason€W.óó€went€on€to€conclude€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€statuteÐ °  Ðdoes€not€allow€restitution€simply€because€property€damage€results€from€a€delinquent€act.€€ItÏrequires€that€the€child€have€caused€that€damage.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€737,€619€A.2d€at€166.Ð °  Ðà  àòòJason€W.óó€is€a€case€that€is€close€in€point.€€A€sheriff€noticed€a€motorcycle€being€drivenÐ °  Ðon€a€public€highway€without€registration€tags€and,€together€with€another€sheriff,€gave€chase.€ÏThe€cyclist,€Jason€W.,€sped€up,€went€through€a€school€yard,€and€began€driving€down€a€pathÏthrough€some€woods,€with€the€two€sheriffððs€vehicles€in€pursuit.€€One€of€the€sheriffððs€vehiclesÏwas€a€standard€police€cruiser,€and,€while€driving€it€through€the€woods,€the€sheriff€collidedÏwith€a€tree,€causing€extensive€damage€to€the€car.€€Jason€was€captured€and€charged,€inÏjuvenile€court,€with€a€variety€of€offenses.€€Through€a€plea€agreement,€he€was€foundÏdelinquent€with€respect€to€only€one€of€them€ð"ð€operating€an€unregistered€vehicle.€€Upon€thatÏfinding,€Jason€and€his€mother€were€ordered€to€pay€restitution€for€the€damage€done€to€theÏsheriffððs€car.€€The€Court€of€Special€Appeals€reversed,€noting€that€(1)€Jasonððs€conduct€did€notÏdamage€the€sheriffððs€car,€and€(2)€while€the€damage€might€be€said€to€have€resulted€fromÏJasonððs€fleeing€and€eluding€the€officers,€it€did€not€ensue€from€his€merely€driving€anÏunregistered€vehicle,€which€was€the€only€delinquent€act€found.€€òòIdóó.Ð °)%% Ðà  àThe€holding€in€òòJason€W.óó€is€consistent€with€the€decision€of€this€Court€in€òò¢In£€Re€Jose€S.,Ð °+'' Ðsupraóó,€304€Md.€396,€499€A.2d€936€(1985).€€There,€two€boys,€Jose€and€Samuel,€broke€intoÐ ° Ða€home€and€stole€goods€worth€$829.€€They€were€each€charged€in€juvenile€court€with€daytimeÏhousebreaking,€breaking€and€entering,€and€€theft€of€goods€of€a€value€òòunderóó€$300.€€SamuelÐ ° Ðadmitted€to€the€breaking€and€entering,€and€all€other€charges€against€him€were€dismissed.€ÏJose€admitted€to€theft€of€goods€of€a€value€under€$300,€and€all€other€charges€against€him€wereÏdismissed.€€The€court€then€entered€restitution€judgments€against€Samuel€and€his€mother€forÏ$414.50€(one„half€of€the€value€of€the€goods€taken)€and€against€Jose€and€his€mother,€in€a€likeÏamount.€€We€reversed€the€judgment€against€Samuel€and€his€mother€and€directed€aÏmodification€of€the€judgment€against€Jose€and€his€mother.€€As€to€Samuel,€we€noted€that€thereÏwas€no€evidence€that€he€stole€anything;€the€only€charge,€and€the€only€evidence,€dealt€withÏhis€breaking€into€the€house.€€We€agreed€with€his€motherððs€contention€that€ð ðthe€court€couldÏnot€order€restitution€against€her€as€the€parent€of€Samuel€B.€without€first€finding€that€her€childÏhad€ððstolen,€damaged,€or€destroyedðð€the€property.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€401,€499€A.2d€at€939.€€For€similarÐ ° Ðreasons,€we€concluded€that€the€judgment€against€Jose€and€his€mother€could€not€exceed€$300,Ïfor€the€evidence€failed€to€establish€that€anything€more€than€that€was€taken€by€Jose.€€òòIdóó.€atÐ °  Ð400,€499€A.2d€at€938.Ìà  àThe€State€urges€that€the€damage€to€the€Andrews€vehicle€ð ðwas€the€direct€result€ofÏ¢Levon£€A.ððs€unauthorized€use€of€that€vehicle,ðð€but€that€is€simply€not€so.€€The€damage€(otherÏthan€that€resulting€from€the€process€of€breaking€into€and€stealing€the€car,€which€has€alreadyÏbeen€excluded€from€consideration)€resulted€entirely€from€the€collision€with€the€shrubberyÐ °*&& Ðand€the€fence.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€¢Levon£,€as€a€passive€passenger€in€the€car,€hadÏanything€to€do€with€that€collision.€€There€is€nothing€to€show€that€he€urged€Antonio€on,€thatÏhe€directed€Antonioððs€actions,€that€he€ever€controlled,€or€attempted€to€control,€the€vehicle,Ïor€that€he€did€anything€to€cause€Antonio€to€drive€into€the€obstructions.€€Had€there€been€anyÏsuch€evidence,€the€court€might€properly€have€found€a€causal€connection€between€¢Levon£ððsÏdelinquent€behavior€and€the€damage.€€òòSee€In€Re€Gloria€T.,€supraóó,€73€Md.€App.€26,€532€A.2dÐ °  Ð1095,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€311€Md.€718,€537€A.2d€272€(1988).€€In€the€absence€of€that€evidence,Ð °  Ðhowever,€there€was€no€basis€for€the€restitution€judgment€against€petitioner.€€ÌÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ àà0(#(#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€SPECIALÏAPPEALS€REVERSED;€CASE€REMANDEDÏTO€THAT€COURT€WITH€INSTRUCTIONS€TOÏVACATE€JUDGMENT€OF€RESTITUTIONÏAGAINST€PETITIONER;€COSTS€IN€THISÏCOURT€AND€IN€COURT€OF€SPECIALÏAPPEALS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€RESPONDENT.ñ1ñÐ À(#À(# ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌDissenting€Opinionñ1ññ4ññ1ñ€ñ1ññ4ññ5ñ€follows:ÌÌÌÌÌÐ °+'' ÐÑ÷*Ñâ âØØâ âÑ  Ññ5ññ4ññ1ñby:ñ1ññ4ññ2ññ1ñ€ñ1ññ2ññ4ññ1ñ€ñ1ññ1ñWñ1ññ3ñilñ3ññ4ññ6ñÔ‡‹æ‹‹ŠæÔDissenting€Opinion€by€œñ6ññ:ñRaker,ñ:ññ:ññ6ñWilner,ñ6ññ:ññ6ñ›€J.:Ð ° ÐÓÓÔ#†Šæ‹‹‹æ©y#ÔÌÔ‡‹æ‹‹ŠæÔà  àI€respectfully€dissent.€€¢Levon£€A.€committed€a€delinquent€act€and,€during€or€as€a€resultÐ ° Ðof€the€commission€of€that€delinquent€act,€he€substantially€damaged€or€decreased€the€valueÏof€the€property€of€another.€Accordingly,€I€would€affirm€the€judgment€of€restitution€againstÏboth€¢Levon£€A.€and€Mrs.€A.,€his€mother.Ìà  àThe€majority€finds€that€¢Levon£€ð ðdid€nothing,€directly€or€indirectly,€to€cause€the€car€toÏbe€damaged.ðð€€Maj.€op.€at€1.€€The€majority€refers€to€¢Levon£€as€ð ða€passive€passenger,ðð€maj.Ïop.€at€16,€implying€that€he€could€not€have€òòcausedóó€the€damage€to€the€vehicle€ð"ð€that€he€didÐ ° Ðnot€have€anything€to€do€with€the€collision.€€This€theory€of€causation,€in€my€opinion,€is€tooÏnarrow.€Ìà  àThe€power€to€impose€restitution€is€derived€from€statutes.€€In€the€juvenile€context,€atÏthe€time€of€this€offense,€restitution€could€be€imposed€only€for€losses€in€which€the€courtÏfound€that€a€child€had€committed€a€delinquent€act€and,€during€or€as€a€result€of€theÏcommission€of€that€act,€the€child€had€stolen,€damaged,€destroyed,€converted,€unlawfullyÏobtained,€or€substantially€decreased€the€value€of€the€property€of€another.€€òòSee€óóMarylandÐ °! ÐCode€(1957,€1996€Repl.€Vol.)€Art.€27,€ðð€808€(current€version€at€Maryland€Code€(1957,€1996ÏRepl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€Art.€27,€ðð€807).€€Absent€a€plea€agreement,€the€award€of€restitutionÏmust€be€based€upon€a€causal€relationship€between€the€delinquent€act€and€the€victimððs€lossÏor€damages.€€To€establish€the€causal€connection,€at€a€minimum,€the€damages€or€lossesÏsuffered€must€have€been€a€foreseeable€consequence€of€the€juvenileððs€acts.€€Ð °+'' Ðà  à¢Levon£€was€a€passenger€in€a€car€driven€by€Antonio€M.,€a€15„year€old€who€obviouslyÏhad€no€driverððs€license€and€no€permission€to€operate€the€car.€€The€ignition€was€ð ðpopped,ððÏand€the€window€was€broken.€€Antonio€M.€was€driving€when€the€two€fled€from€the€police,Ïand€the€car€was€damaged€when€it€collided€into€some€shrubbery€and€a€fence.€€Although,€atÏthe€delinquency€hearing,€¢Levon£€denied€knowing€that€the€car€was€stolen,€he€was€found€to€beÏdelinquent€as€a€result€of€his€unauthorized€use€of€a€motor€vehicle.€€That€finding€ofÏdelinquency€is€not€before€this€Court,€and€the€majority€assumes,€for€the€purposes€of€thisÏappeal,€that€the€finding€of€delinquency€is€valid.€€òòSeeóó€maj.€op.€at€3.ñ6ññ8ñØØñ8ññ6ññ9ñ¢×ƒ ×ñ9ññ9ñ׃×ñ9ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ףР° Ðà  à€€This€case€is€not€a€situation€where€restitution€was€ordered€simply€because€propertyÏdamage€resulted€from€a€delinquent€act.€€¢Levon£€A.€was€enjoying€the€common€use€of€theÏstolen€car€with€the€driver,€Antonio€M.€€€Unauthorized€use€of€a€vehicle€is€a€high€risk€activity.€ÏSurely,€¢Levon£€must€have€been€able€to€anticipate€the€likelihood€of€detection€by€lawÏenforcement€and€a€potential€chase.€€Damage€to€Mr.€Edwardsððs€vehicle€was€certainlyÏforeseeable,€yet€¢Levon£€continued€with€the€joy€ride.€€A€teenagerððs€shared€unauthorized€useÏof€the€vehicle€with€the€driver€supports€and€contributes€to€the€damage€that€results.€WithoutÏquestion,€the€damage€to€the€vehicle€occurred€òòduringóó€the€commission€of€the€delinquent€act.€Ð °" ÐAs€a€òòresultóó€of€¢Levon£ððs€delinquent€act,€i.e.,€the€unauthorized€use€of€the€motor€vehicle,€the€carÐ ° Ðwas€damaged.€€As€such,€restitution€was€properly€ordered.€€à È àÐ ° Ðà  àThe€restitution€statute€in€effect€when€this€matter€came€before€the€trial€court€did€notÏrequire€that€the€damage€or€injury€to€property€be€caused€solely€by€the€hand€of€the€juvenile.€ÏòòSee€óóðð€808.€€Rather,€the€juvenile€is€responsible€for€restitution€for€any€loss€to€the€property€thatÐ °  Ðhe€or€she€causes€or€that€is€caused€by€a€co„conspirator,€aider,€abettor,€or€other€principal,€soÏlong€as€the€injury€sustained€by€the€victim€is€of€such€a€nature€that€a€reasonable€person€couldÏhave€foreseen€or€anticipated€that€the€damage€was€a€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€theÏdelinquent€act.Ìà  àOther€jurisdictions€similarly€have€construed€the€causation€factor€for€the€purposes€ofÏrestitution€consistently€with€the€interpretation€that€I€propose€here.€€For€example,€theÏWashington€Court€of€Appeals€has€consistently€applied€¢foreseeability£€and€but„for€causationÏanalysis€in€interpreting€the€Washington€Juvenile€Justice€Act,€òòWash.€Rev.€Code€óóððÐ ° Ð13.40.190(1)€(2000),¢×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€which,€like€ðð€808,€grants€the€authority€to€impose€restitution€to€victimsÐ ° Ðð ðwho€have€suffered€loss€or€damage€òòas€a€result€of€the€offense€committed€by€the€respondentóóððÐ °  М(emphasis€added).€€In€òòState€v.€Barrett,€óó773€P.2d€421€(Wash.€App.€1989),€the€court€upheldÐ ° Ðthe€imposition€of€restitution€against€a€juvenile€who€had€pleaded€guilty€to€taking€a€motorÏvehicle€without€permission€for€voluntarily€riding€as€a€passenger€in€the€unlawfully€taken€car.€ÏThe€court€held€that€there€was€a€sufficient€causal€link€between€the€conduct€committed€and€theÏdamage€that€occurred€while€he€was€a€passenger€in€the€car.€€òòAccord€State€v.€Harrington,€óó782Ð °  ÐP.2d€1101€(Wash.€App.€1989)€(holding€that€a€juvenile€who€had€pleaded€guilty€only€toÏpossession€of€a€stolen€car,€rather€than€theft,€still€had€òòcaused€óódamage€to€the€car€because€theÐ °  Ðdamage€occurred€during,€and€was€a€foreseeable€result€of,€his€illegal€possession€of€the€car).€ÏSimilarly,€in€òòState€v.€Massey,€óó806€P.2d€193€(Or.€App.€1991),€òòsentence€revððd€on€otherÐ ° Ðgroundsóó,€òòcert.€denied,€State€v.€Massey,€óó815€P.2d€1273€(Or.€1991),€the€court€held€that€it€wasÐ ° Ðnot€error€to€impose€restitution€against€a€defendant€who€was€convicted€of€unauthorized€useÏof€a€motor€vehicle,€where€there€was€no€evidence€that€he€had€taken€the€vehicle,€because€theÏvictimððs€pecuniary€damages€were€the€result€of€the€defendantððs€continued€illegal€possessionÏof€the€car.€€Inòò€People€v.€Rivera,€óó515€N.Y.S.2d€397€(Dist.€Ct.€1987),€the€court€held€that€aÐ ° Ðpassenger€in€a€stolen€car,€who€had€pleaded€guilty€to€attempted€unauthorized€use€of€a€vehicleÏand€knew€that€the€car€was€stolen,€could€be€held€liable€to€pay€restitution€for€damage€thatÏresulted€when€the€vehicle€collided€with€another€car,€even€though€he€had€yelled€at€the€driverÏto€stop€the€car.€€òòSee€id.€óóat€398€(finding€that€due€care€had€no€bearing€on€the€issue€of€liabilityÐ °&"" Ðbecause€the€damage€was€still€caused€by€the€defendantððs€participation€in€the€driverððsÏunauthorized€use€of€the€motor€›vehicle).Ð °*&& Ðà  àThe€majority€bases€its€decision,€in€part,€on€the€case€of€òòIn€Re€Jose€S.,€óó304€Md.€396,Ð ° Ð499€A.2d€936€(1985).€€òòSee€óómaj.€op.€at€15„16.€€That€case,€however,€is€distinguishable€fromÐ ° Ðthe€one€at€bar.€€In€that€case,€the€two€boys€were€found€delinquent€for€different€acts€that€wereÏseparated€chronologically€ð"ð€one€had€been€found€delinquent€of€breaking€and€entering€andÏthe€other€of€theft.€€We€held€that€the€two€boys€could€not€be€made€to€pay€restitution€for€the€actsÏthat€occurred€òòprior€and€subsequent€to€óótheir€respective€participation€in€the€illegal€activity.€Ð °  ÐIn€this€case,€€¢Levon£€was€a€principal€in€the€unauthorized€use€at€all€times€after€he€discoveredÏthat€the€car€was€stolen,€and€he€is€responsible€for€the€reasonably€foreseeable€damage€thatÏoccurred.€€òò€See€óóMaryland€Code€(1957,€1996€Repl.€Vol.,€2000€Supp.)€Art.€27,€ðð€349.€€€TheÐ ° Ðparallel€to€òòJose€S.€óóin€this€case,€if€any,€would€be€that€¢Levon£€can€not€be€made€to€pay€restitutionÐ ° Ðfor€damage€that€occurred€to€the€vehicle€prior€to€his€participation€in€the€unauthorized€use€ð"ðÏprecisely€the€holding€of€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals.€€Ìà  àAccordingly,€I€dissent.€€Ìà  àJudge€¢Cathell£€has€authorized€me€to€state€that€he€joins€in€the€views€expressed€in€thisÏdissenting€opinionÔ#†ŠЄ‹‹‹ЄAz#Ôñ6ñ