State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez
367 Or. 614
Or.2021Background
- Defendant (Aguirre-Rodriguez) pleaded guilty to DUI, two counts of fourth-degree assault, and failure to perform driver duties after driving into a victim’s pickup and injuring its occupants.
- The state sought restitution totaling $11,803.50, including $10,404.80 that the victim’s insurer paid to repair the truck (less a $500 deductible).
- The state introduced: a Kelley Blue Book value for the truck, photographs of the post-collision damage, and a detailed autobody repair estimate prepared with the Motor Crash Estimating Guide and CCC One (listing parts, paint supplies, and labor rates).
- The trial court observed the vehicle and, considering the submitted evidence, found the repair cost reasonable and ordered full restitution.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the state’s evidence failed to show how the charged repair costs corresponded to the relevant market.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court, holding the state’s cumulative evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable-cost finding under ORS 137.106.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state proved repair costs were "reasonable" for restitution under ORS 137.106 | Paid repair bill plus estimate, photos, and KBB value permit a factfinder to infer market-rate reasonableness—especially where insurer paid | A paid insurer bill alone cannot establish reasonableness; payment says nothing about insurer’s internal practices or market correspondence | The combined evidence (insurer payment, detailed estimate using market tools, and photos) was sufficient for a reasonable inference that costs reflected market rates |
| Whether evidence of an insurer-paid bill, standing alone, is always sufficient to show market value | Insurer payment can support an inference of market reasonableness because insurers have incentives and expertise to police costs | Payment alone is insufficient; relying on it risks speculation about policy terms or insurer procedures | The Court did not decide the general rule for payment-alone cases; it found payment plus corroborating market-based estimate and photos sufficient |
| Proper standard of review for sufficiency of evidence challenge | Review evidence in light most favorable to state; ask if a rational factfinder could find necessary facts | Same standard applies; defendant emphasizes need to exclude mere speculation | Sufficiency review applies; court affirms if reasonable inferences from record support the finding |
| Role of civil-market principles in restitution valuation | Market value and civil-damages principles inform reasonable repair cost under ORS 137.106 | Agrees market principles apply but stresses need for concrete market linkage | Market-rate valuation is appropriate; evidence showing link to market (e.g., industry estimating guides, local parts sourcing, photos) suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Farris v. McCracken, 253 Or 273 (1969) (paid bill alone, without explanation, does not prove charges are justified)
- State v. J. M. E., 299 Or App 483 (2019) (discusses need to relate billed charges to the relevant market for restitution)
- Anderson v. Sturm, 209 Or 190 (1956) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Swank v. Elwert, 55 Or 487 (1910) (market value as an appropriate measure for repair/replacement damages)
- State v. Islam, 359 Or 796 (2016) (restitution informed by civil principles governing recoverable economic damages)
- State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584 (2016) (reasonable inferences permitted, but not speculation)