State v. Roskelley

When determining restitution, “the trial court may consider any evidence that it ordinarily would at sentencing hearing.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 425 (2015).

Defendant was convicted for reckless endangerment and reckless driving. They appealed the supplemental judgment imposing restitution, arguing: (1) a lack of connection between the damages and the convictions, (2) the victim’s insurance settlements barred restitution, and (3) the State did not prove reasonableness and necessity regarding some of the payments which restitution was based on.

When determining restitution, “the trial court may consider any evidence that it ordinarily would at sentencing hearing.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 425 (2015). Because evidence supported the trial court’s findings that “[D]efendant’s recklessness in driving caused [victim’s] injuries and her economic damages,” those criminal activities supported restitution.

Despite the victim’s settlements with Defendant’s insurance, and their own workers’ compensation (SAIF), because “SAIF specifically reserved its ‘rights to collect any criminal restitution we may be awarded,’” and did not accept the settlement as payment in full, the trial court retained authority to award SAIF restitution.

Finally, although it was conceded that the State did not present sufficient evidence regarding certain expenditures’ reasonableness and necessity, any resultant error was harmless because restitution was not based on those expenditures.