State v. Parsons

Under Ramos, the damage caused by a defendant and thus would be applied in a restitution award to the plaintiff, would need to be a “reasonable foreseeable” consequence of the defendant’s actions. State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581, 596-597, 368 P.3d 446 (2016).

Defendant Appealed a supplemental judgment that mandated him to pay restitution to Abercrombie & Fitch and the City of Tigard for both damaged and misplaced items. Defendant assigned error to the lower court’s lack of making an express discovery of “reasonable foreseeability.” Defendant argued that because the lower court failed to make an express finding of “reasonable foreseeability,” Defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution. Under Ramos, the damage caused by a defendant and thus would be applied in a restitution award to the plaintiff, would need to be a “reasonable foreseeable” consequence of the defendant’s actions. State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581, 596-597, 368 P.3d 446 (2016). The Court held that in State v. Parsons, 287 Or. App. 351, 403 P.3d 497, adh’d to as modified on recons, 288 Or. App. 449, 403 P.3d 834 (2017), rev den, 362 Or. 545 (2018) (Parsons I), it was never required that “reasonable foreseeability” be found expressly. Because the Court found that the trial court impliedly found “reasonable foreseeability,” Defendant could be held liable for the restitution damages applied in that assignment of error. Supplemental judgment reversed in part; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.