State v. Andrews, 456 P.3d 261

Defendant Andrews was charged with fourth-degree assault and harassment based on an incident where he yelled at, spat on, and punched a victim, knocking out the victim’s tooth bridge.
The jury acquitted Andrews of assault (which required proof of "physical injury") but convicted him of harassment (which required proof of "offensive physical contact").
The State sought restitution under ORS 137.106 for the cost of replacing the tooth bridge; the trial court awarded restitution over Andrews’ objection.
Andrews argued restitution was unauthorized because the jury could have convicted him of harassment based solely on the spitting, so the record did not establish that the jury found he delivered the punch that caused the dental damage.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed in part, holding a trial court may order restitution only if the record and conviction show the jury necessarily found the act that caused the economic loss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may award restitution for a specific act when the jury’s conviction does not specify which act it relied on	The record need only contain evidence from which the jury could have found the act; the sentencing court can treat any act within the "scope" of the conviction as a basis for restitution	Restitution requires that the record and the conviction show the jury necessarily found the defendant committed the specific act that caused the damages	The court held the trial court may not award restitution unless it can determine from the record and the conviction that the jury necessarily found the defendant committed the act that produced the economic loss
Whether a sentencing court may make its own factual finding about which alternative act the jury relied on	Where evidence supports multiple alternative acts, the sentencing court may infer the jury relied on any act the evidence reasonably supports	The sentencing court cannot substitute its own factfinding for the jury; it must identify from the record which act the jury necessarily found	The court held the sentencing court cannot make that factual determination when the record does not show the jury actually found the specific act; Dulfu and Lefthandbull govern

State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647 (2018) (trial court cannot make its own finding about which alternative act a jury relied on when the record does not show the jury made that finding)
State v. Lefthandbull, 306 Or 330 (1988) (restitution requires proof that defendant committed the particular act causing the loss; a plea without specific acts is insufficient)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or 582 (2016) (restitution requires objectively verifiable economic damages that "result from" the defendant’s crime; court determines amount and causation)
State v. Hart, 299 Or 128 (1985) (trial court may make factual findings at sentencing about a victim’s economic damages)
State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172 (1981) (identifies prerequisites for restitution: criminal activity, economic damages, and causation)