State v. Akerman
278 Or. App. 486
Tillamook Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance; a first-degree burglary charge was dismissed but restitution was stipulated to be considered at sentencing.
- Officers detained defendant on June 8, 2013, at a rural vacant property after a neighbor reported him; deputies found methamphetamine and metal/wiring in his bag.
- The victim presented a list of items allegedly stolen from the vacant home over about two years, including vehicles, appliances, and scrap metal, with values.
- The state argued defendant was a persistent drug user who had long-known the property was vacant and had likely taken many items (including scrap metal) over that period.
- The trial court rejected restitution for vehicles (finding they were outside the burglary scope) but ordered $12,641 restitution for items taken from inside the home (insulation, water heaters, stove, plumbing, wiring, etc.).
- Defendant appealed, arguing the state failed to show a causal link between his admitted criminal activity (burglary on or about June 8, 2013) and the multi-year losses claimed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may be imposed for property taken over a two-year vacancy period | State: Evidence (metal in bag, scrap removed while defendant knew property vacant, girlfriend's phone call) supports inference defendant stole many items over time | Defendant: No admission or conviction for thefts outside June 8, 2013; impractical for him to have taken large items; speculative link | Court: Reversed as to restitution beyond items causally tied to defendant's admitted burglary on or about June 8, 2013; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420 (2015) (review standard and limits on restitution evidence)
- State v. Dorsey, 259 Or App 441 (2013) (restitution limited to offenses admitted or charged)
- State v. Ivory, 231 Or App 381 (2009) (restitution requires a nonspeculative causal link between criminal activity and damages)
- State v. Howett, 184 Or App 352 (2002) (restitution cannot cover amounts outside defendant’s admitted/charged time frame)