State v. Reyes Castro

The preservation rule requires parties to present their challenges to a trial court prior to an appeal, and “restitution may be awarded under ORS 137.106 if defendant’s crime was a factual cause of the victim’s economic damages and those damages were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the crime.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 (2008); State v. Gerhardt, 360 Or 629, 636 (2016).

Defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, and the trial court imposed restitution to compensate for the victim’s medical bills from the resultant injuries. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal and the imposition of restitution, arguing that her minimal participation was legally insufficient to hold her criminally liable for aiding and abetting her codefendant and that she is not responsible for the medical bills because she did not personally cause the injuries. The preservation rule requires parties to present their challenges to a trial court prior to an appeal, and “restitution may be awarded under ORS 137.106 if defendant’s crime was a factual cause of the victim’s economic damages and those damages were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the crime.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 (2008); State v. Gerhardt, 360 Or 629, 636 (2016). Because Defendant did not notify the trial court of her separate and distinct legal theory regarding her kidnapping charge, she did not satisfy the preservation rule. The trial court did not plainly err by imposing restitution because the victim’s injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the kidnapping for which Defendant was convicted. Affirmed.