A victim’s right to restitution is to be broadly and liberally construed, and at a hearing to set the amount of restitution, the victim’s opinion as to the value of the property stolen is prima facie evidence of the amount of loss. Appellant was convicted of nine counts of first degree burglary, two counts of second degree commercial burglary and one count of receiving stolen property, and sentenced to two years in prison. At the restitution hearing, the victims testified that the jewelry items stolen had been gifts and, therefore, they had no actual documentation of value and could only offer estimates. The appellate court agreed that the estimates constituted prima facie value of the items so as to shift the burden to defendant to demonstrate that the estimates were error. As appellant had notice of the amounts and the opportunity to challenge them, there was no due process violation.