RALSTON v. TURPIN is a Supreme Court case from 2002 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could order a defendant to pay restitution to a victim of a crime. The case involved a defendant, Robert Turpin, who was convicted of burglary and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The state court also ordered Turpin to pay restitution to the victim of the burglary, Ralston. Turpin appealed the restitution order, arguing that the state court lacked the authority to order restitution. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to order restitution. The Court reasoned that the state court had the authority to impose a sentence that included restitution, as long as the restitution was not excessive or disproportionate to the crime. The Court also noted that the state court had the authority to order restitution as part of a criminal sentence, as long as the restitution was not punitive in nature. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to order restitution to the victim of the crime, as long as the restitution was not excessive or punitive in nature. The Court also noted that the state court had the authority to order restitution as part of a criminal sentence.

In the Supreme Court case of Ralston v. Turpin, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that under the plain language of Rule 68, an offer of judgment does not automatically extinguish any claims for attorney's fees or costs incurred prior to its acceptance; rather, it only affects those fees and costs accrued after its acceptance. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress had intended such a result they would have included language to this effect in Rule 68 itself. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that since there was no clear indication from either the text or legislative history of Rule 68 as to whether pre-acceptance fees were extinguished by an offer of judgment then it should be left up to state law on how these issues are addressed instead.