State v. Emerine

For the court to order restitution, “the record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s criminal activities and the victim’s economic damages.” State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490 (2016).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment which ordered her to pay restitution to a victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence on the record was insufficient to establish a nexus between her criminal conduct and the victim’s tax payments or penalties. Defendant asserted that under ORS 137.106 the restitution related to the tax penalties suffered by the victim were a result of her negligent—but noncriminal work performance. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s actions may be inferred to have caused the victim to be unable to meet their financial obligations and therefore incurred a penalty which Defendant should be responsible for. For the court to order restitution, “the record must support a nonspeculative inference that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s criminal activities and the victim’s economic damages.” State v. Akerman, 278 Or App 486, 490 (2016). The Court found that there was no evidence relating Defendant’s actions with the victim’s inability to meet its financial obligations. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in imposing restitution. Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded as to the restitution sum of the company’s taxes.