State v. Park

A trial court plainly errs when it orders restitution where there is no evidence establishing that the defendant’s criminal conduct resulted in economic damages to the victim. See State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App 429, 244 P3d 891 (2010); State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342, 280 P3d 399 (2012).

Defendant was convicted of numerous counts of sex crimes committed against two minor victims. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the trial court plainly erred in imposing that amount in restitution to CICA “because there was no evidence to establish that it suffered economic damages as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.” A trial court plainly errs when it orders restitution where there is no evidence establishing that the defendant’s criminal conduct resulted in economic damages to the victim. See State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App 429, 244 P3d 891 (2010); State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342, 280 P3d 399 (2012).The State conceded that “the trial court plainly erred in imposing restitution to CICA, although on a slightly different legal basis.” The Court explained, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the “nature and amount” of the victim’s economic damages. See ORS 137.106; State v. Ixcolin-Otzoy, 288 Or App 103, 104, 406 P3d 100 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 699 (2018). The Court concluded that “there was insufficient evidence to establish the nature of the ordered restitution.” Portion of judgment imposing restitution reversed; otherwise affirmed.