State v. Boyar, 328 Or. App. 678

Defendant pleaded no-contest to first-degree criminal mischief for damaging doors at the City of Tillamook transit facility; restitution amount was left to the court.
Trial court awarded restitution including $6,938 for replacement doors (part of an $8,788 total contractor invoice).
State presented photographs, testimony from the transit operations coordinator and the city’s claims adjuster, an itemized estimate, an explanatory contractor email, and the contractor’s invoice.
Testimony and documentation showed the existing doors would not fit or lock properly if repaired, materials could not be sourced locally, and replacement would cost less than repair.
Defendant argued the court erred by ordering replacement cost rather than repair cost and, alternatively, that restitution should reflect depreciated market value of the doors.
Court held replacement cost was proper because doors are fixtures to real property, the injury was repairable only by replacement, and replacement was the lesser reasonable cost to restore the property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether replacement rather than repair cost may be awarded as restitution	State: evidence showed doors could not be readily repaired and replacement cost was less	Boyar: state failed to prove replacement necessary; court should award repair cost	Replacement cost permissible where proof shows repair impossible or costlier; evidence supported replacement
Whether the state proved reasonableness of the replacement cost	State: itemized estimate, contractor email, and invoice established cost and availability issues	Boyar: evidence insufficient to establish amount was reasonable	Court accepted estimates/invoice and testimony as sufficient proof of reasonable replacement cost
Proper measure of damages: replacement cost vs depreciated market value	State: measure should be what restores property to original condition for fixtures	Boyar: restitution should be fair market value at time of damage, accounting for depreciation	For fixtures/real property when injury is temporary or repairable only by replacement, measure is cost to restore original condition; depreciated market value not required

State v. Lobue, 304 Or App 13 (standard of review for restitution findings)
State v. De Verteuil, 304 Or App 163 (restitution equals amount recoverable in civil action; personal-property valuation principle)
State v. Smith, 291 Or App 785 (review in light most favorable to the state)
State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172 (restitution is penal, not compensatory)
McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383 (measure for real-property injury: lost market value for permanent injury; cost to restore for temporary/repairable injury)
Oldham v. Fanno, 168 Or App 573 (fixtures annexed to real property)
State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 614 (state bears burden to prove economic damages for restitution)