- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
- Date Filed: 12-29-2011
- Case #: A144761
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Rosenblum, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant challenges the trial court’s order for restitution of $18,000 for diamond earrings, lost after defendant’s burglarized the victim’s home. The standard of proof to prove restitution was by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant claimed that there was not sufficient evidence on which to base the restitution amount. At trial, the burglary victim presented evidence that the earrings were a gift from her wealthy father to her mother, who wore good quality jewelry. She provided an estimate from a jeweler, based on a drawing of the earrings and an oral description. The jeweler estimated the value as between $18,000 and $22,000. This evidence led the trial court to determine the restitution value was $18,000. Also, the trial court determined that these were economic damages. The Court agreed, rejecting defendant’s argument that the damages were not economic since the cost was not objectively verifiable. The Court determined that the evidence provided for determining the restitution amount was sufficient for the trial court to act as fact finder and to make the restitution determination. Affirmed.