Aftermarket Car Parts Held to Be Insufficient Restitution for Victim of Vehicular Property Damage In People v. Frias, B309052 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2021), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District held that a crime victim’s right to be fully reimbursed for every economic loss that the defendant’s criminal conduct caused should be interpreted broadly and liberally in the victim’s favor.In this case, the defendant pleaded no contest to stealing a 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe. His actions resulted in damage to the bumper, side, grille, and other parts of the car. A repair shop prepared two estimates. This first estimate was for a higher amount because it was for original manufacturer parts. The second estimate was lower because it was for aftermarket parts. The trial court awarded restitution in the amount of the first estimate. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion by accepting the higher estimate.The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court had the discretion to determine that the owner was entitled to original manufacturer parts rather than aftermarket parts. The defendant had not met his burden of proving that aftermarket parts would adequately compensate the victim for his losses.