State v. Andrews, 433 P.3d 757

Defendant was convicted by a jury of harassment (offensive physical contact) after an altercation with the victim at the victim's car wash; he was acquitted of fourth-degree assault.
At trial the victim testified defendant spat on him and struck him in the face, causing a tooth bridge to fall out and be damaged.
The jury verdict did not specify whether the harassment conviction rested on spitting, punching, or both.
At sentencing the state submitted dental records showing $2,280 in repair costs and sought restitution for those damages.
Defendant objected, arguing restitution impermissibly required the court to find he punched the victim when the jury might have convicted based only on spitting.
The trial court found the evidence supported that the punch caused the bridge damage and ordered restitution; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution under ORS 137.106(1) may be imposed when the jury convicted of a unitary offense (offensive physical contact) but did not specify which act (spitting or punching) proved that offense	State: restitution proper because the record (trial testimony and sentencing evidence) showed defendant struck the victim and that strike proximately caused $2,280 in economic damage	Defendant: restitution impermissibly expands criminal activity beyond the jury’s verdict because jury may have convicted based only on spitting, which could not have caused the dental damage	Court affirmed: restitution allowed where conviction encompassed evidence of both spitting and punching and the court relied on the existing record to find factual causation and foreseeability; only impermissible if record showed conviction rested solely on an act unconnected to damages

State v. Kirkland, 268 Or. App. 420 (discussing standard of review for restitution awards)
State v. Jordan, 249 Or. App. 93 (legal conclusions reviewed for errors of law)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (measure of restitution: full amount of economic damages that result from defendant's criminal activities; foreseeability test)
State v. Gerhardt, 360 Or. 629 (factual causation and foreseeability requirements for restitution)
State v. Sigman, 141 Or. App. 479 (trial court may consider sentencing evidence beyond the trial record when determining restitution)
State v. Dorsey, 259 Or. App. 441 (restitution cannot enlarge scope of criminal activity beyond conviction)
State v. Seggerman, 167 Or. App. 140 (cannot order restitution for offenses not convicted or admitted)
State v. Hazlitt, 77 Or. App. 344 (remand restitution when record fails to link specific convicted conduct to damages)