State v. Benko, 2019 Ohio 3968

James Benko was charged in two Lorain County cases with second-degree burglary and one fourth-degree theft for taking coins from his brother’s collection; he pled no contest and was found guilty.
The trial court held a restitution hearing after parties disputed the restitution amount; the victim (Benko’s brother) testified about missing coins and valuations.
The brother submitted a three-page inventory (State’s Exhibit A) and a spreadsheet of replacement values based on the CPG Coin & Currency Market Review (State’s Exhibit B); he also recovered some coins for $1,100.00.
The brother claimed total loss of $49,621.00 (including recovery costs); the trial court found an error in the spreadsheet ($9,000 listed instead of $900), deducted $8,100, and awarded $41,521.00 in restitution.
Benko appealed only the restitution award, arguing the victim’s inventory, valuation source, and testimony were not competent, credible evidence to support the amount.
The Ninth District reviewed the restitution order for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the victim’s testimony and exhibits were sufficient and Benko had the opportunity to challenge them at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution amount was supported by competent, credible evidence	Victim’s testimony and submitted inventory/spreadsheet suffice to establish economic loss	Inventory and spreadsheet are unreliable; valuation source (CPG) was not entered into the record; testimony is self‑serving and lacks reasonable certainty	Trial court did not abuse discretion; victim’s testimony and exhibits constituted competent, credible evidence and defendant had opportunity to cross‑examine

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion as more than error of judgment)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court’s when applying abuse‑of‑discretion standard)