State v. Rock

A court can order restitution to the victim of a crime when the State proves a causal connection between the defendant’s criminal activity and the victim’s economic loss. If proven, the defendant has the burden to prove that the victim could have avoided the loss through reasonable conduct.

Defendant appealed judgment ordering her to pay restitution to the victim, arguing the evidence was not sufficient to determine the value of the motorcycle she stole, and therefore that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the victim’s economic loss. For a court to order restitution, the State must provide evidence of a “causal relationship” between the defendant’s criminal activity and the victim’s economic loss. See, e.g., State v. Pumphrey, 266 Or. App. 729 (2014). The Court held that the State met its burden to prove the fair market value of the motorcycle, and that, once the State met that burden, Defendant had the burden to prove that the victim would have avoided loss through reasonable conduct. The Court held that Defendant did not meet that burden, and therefore that the trial court did not err in its restitution judgment. Affirmed.