State v. Page

Restitution may be ordered when it is reasonably foreseeable that the damages were "the kind of harm to which a defendant may be held liable." State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 595, 368 P3d 446 (2016).

The appropriate calculation of damages to real property is the cost to return the property to its original state. McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 82 P3d 1043 (2004).

Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief in the second decree for detonating a firework mortar. This damaged the exterior of the victim’s house. Defendant appealed a restitution order. Defendant argued the court erred because the restitution order included the cost of repainting two sides of victim's house that were not damaged by the mortar and the State failed to show it was reasonably forseeable Defendant's conduct caused the disputed damages for victim repainting two sides of the house unaffected by the explosion. Restitution may be ordered when it is reasonably foreseeable that the damages were "the kind of harm to which a defendant may be held liable." State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 595, 368 P3d 446 (2016). The appropriate calculation of damages to real property is the cost to return the property to its original state. McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 82 P3d 1043 (2004). The Court found it can be inferred from the trial court's findings of fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s conduct would cause damage to property and thus require significant repair and paint costs incurred by the victim, including repainting the undamaged walls to match the color and quality of the new paint on the damaged wall. The Court held the trial court did not err in its restitution order because the amount corresponded to the cost necessary to restore the walls to their original condition.  Affirmed.