State v. Mattila

A court may not award restitution for lost wages without evidence proving the causal connection between the ordered restitution and the economic damages resulting from the crime.

The defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter after he killed another driver while driving intoxicated. Because the deceased victim of the crash died while working, the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF) paid death benefits to the victim’s spouse. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution to SAIF for the payout to the victim’s spouse. On appeal, the defendant argued that he should not be required to pay lost wage restitution. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that in order to be liable for restitution of lost income, the state must present evidence showing that the award is equivalent to the actual lost wages of the victim stemming from the crime. Here, the Court found that at the trial court, the state failed to present evidence of the victim’s actual wages or that the “fatal benefits” were equivalent to those wages. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the restitution award for lost wages.