State v. Cain, 320 P.3d 600

Defendant convicted after bench trial of five counts of first-degree theft for underreporting earnings (gratuities and hours) and receiving excess unemployment benefits; court ordered $26,004 restitution plus 12% interest.
State’s Exhibit 1: department computer printout summarizing weekly claimed earnings, employer-reported earnings (from Hilton), benefits paid, correct benefits, and overpayment; prepared by department investigator Younger using employer quarterly reports, an audit letter (Exhibit 5), and payroll records.
Younger testified the Hilton files quarterly wage reports as part of its ordinary business and under statutory/administrative duty, that the department maintains and relies on those reports, and that the department’s audit process confirms discrepancies.
Hilton payroll coordinator (Shew) testified the audit letter was filled from Hilton payroll records and was accurate.
Trial court admitted Exhibit 1 over defendant’s hearsay objection as a business record (OEC 803(6)) and OEC 1006 summary; refused defendant’s continuance and denied judgment of acquittal; imposed 12% interest on restitution.
On appeal the court affirmed evidentiary rulings and denied preserved errors except it held the addition of 12% interest to restitution was plain error and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Exhibit 1 (double hearsay)	Exhibit 1 is admissible as department business records and summaries; Hilton information trustworthy because employers have duty to report and department relies on those reports.	Employer-originated column is inadmissible double hearsay because Younger lacked personal knowledge of Hilton payroll practices and did not maintain Hilton records.	Exhibit 1 admissible under OEC 803(6); Hilton reports were made in ordinary course/duty to report so exception applies.
Admission under OEC 1006 (summary)	Exhibit 1 also qualifies as a summary of voluminous records.	N/A (alternative contention)	Court need not reach OEC 1006 because OEC 803(6) sufficed.
Trial court’s denial of continuance and motion for acquittal	State opposed continuance; evidence sufficed for conviction.	Continuance needed; judgment of acquittal warranted.	Appellate court rejected these assignments of error without discussion.
Imposition of 12% interest as restitution	Interest is recoverable as part of restitution (state initially argued but later conceded error).	Interest not recoverable because restitution statute awards only "economic damages" (objectively verifiable monetary losses) and excludes post-judgment interest.	Court held adding 12% interest plain error; post-judgment interest is not "economic damages" and cannot be imposed as restitution; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Cook, 340 Or. 530 (standard of review for hearsay admissibility)
Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124 (business-records exception requires supplier be under duty to report)
Mayor v. Dowsett, 240 Or. 196 (application of duty-to-report in hospital/medical-record context)
State v. White, 249 Or. App. 166 (post-judgment interest not recoverable as restitution for unemployment-benefits theft)
Highway Comm. v. DeLong Corp., 275 Or. 351 (post-judgment interest characterized as penalty for delayed payment)