State v. Craine, 349 P.3d 628

In May 2012 defendant rented a U-Haul truck in Springdale, Arkansas for a one-day, in-town move; the truck was recovered in Oregon ~25 days later. Defendant was charged and convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) under ORS 164.135(1)(c).
U-Haul records and manager testimony showed the rental was intended to be returned to the Arkansas location the next day; U-Haul repeatedly attempted contact after the truck was not returned and began recovery procedures. Defendant had not paid an additional deposit required to extend the rental.
At trial the state introduced U-Haul computer printouts showing accrued charges of about $4,230.60 and an initial $100 deposit; the prosecutor did not press the payment issue. On cross, defense elicited testimony that the amount appeared owed.
Defendant proffered a separate U-Haul printout, timestamped the morning of trial, purporting to show the $4,230.60 had been paid; the court excluded it as irrelevant and the jury convicted defendant of UUV.
At sentencing the court left restitution open for the state to determine and notify defendant; the state submitted a supplemental judgment ordering $2,147.60 restitution and the court entered it the same day without giving defendant the promised opportunity to be heard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post-arrest U-Haul payment printout	Payment evidence not relevant to UUV; state introduced only business records of charges	Payment shows contract was "fluid" and that defendant accepted financial responsibility, so retention was not a "gross deviation"; alternatively, curative admissibility because state "opened the door" by showing an outstanding balance	Exclusion affirmed — payment/nonpayment irrelevant to whether retention was a gross deviation from the agreed return time; defendant also cannot invoke curative admissibility because he elicited and failed to object to the state records
Whether trial court violated ORS 137.106(5) by entering supplemental restitution judgment without hearing	Department (state) sought restitution and provided amount to court; entry was proper	Defendant argues he was promised 10 days to request a restitution hearing and was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the supplemental judgment was entered	Reversed (vacated supplemental judgment) — court erred as defendant was not given required opportunity to object or be heard; remand for restitution proceedings

State v. Titus, 328 Or. 475, 982 P.2d 1133 (legal standard for reviewing relevance)
Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or. 125, 485 P.2d 1085 (describing curative admissibility doctrine)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209, 191 P.3d 637 (preservation gives way when party had no practical ability to raise issue)
State v. Beckham, 253 Or. App. 609, 292 P.3d 611 (lack of notice/opportunity to object makes preservation principles inapposite)
State v. DeCamp, 158 Or. App. 238, 973 P.2d 922 (party cannot be required to contemporaneously object when unaware of court action)
State v. Noble, 231 Or. App. 185, 217 P.3d 1130 (review standard for restitution orders)
State v. Selmer, 231 Or. App. 31, 217 P.3d 1092 (error arises when court issues order without prior opportunity to object)