State v. Hall, 247 P.3d 1050

Hall was convicted by a jury of theft and computer crime, receiving 16 months' imprisonment with an 18-month probation term and a restitution obligation.
At sentencing the court ordered restitution of $10,860.38; Hall reserved the right to challenge that amount within 30 days.
A later restitution hearing was held to determine the proper amount, as the Hardins sought $14,543.11 for missing inventory, unpaid bills, and auditing costs.
Auditing and inventory irregularities were identified through AVImark system audits and corroborated by the Hardins and witnesses, totaling over $1,000 in missing inventory and related costs.
The trial court ultimately ordered $14,293.11 in restitution, allowing auditing fees as part of restitution, but Hall challenged both the calculation basis and the inclusion of auditing expenses.
The appellate court addressed jurisdiction to modify restitution post-sentencing, the proper measure of restitution (retail vs wholesale cost), the inclusion of auditing expenses, and a mistrial claim related to an order in limine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to revisit restitution amount post-sentencing	Hall contends no jurisdiction to review amount after sentencing.	State argues jurisdiction remained open to modify restitution as a condition of probation.	Jurisdiction existed to reconsider the amount.
Proper measure of restitution for missing inventory	Hall argues actual cost (wholesale) should be used to avoid windfall.	State contends retail value is appropriate to reflect loss and profits.	Wholesale cost, not retail value, should govern restitution.
Inclusion of auditing expenses in restitution	Auditing time/cost should not be recoverable unless supported by reliable evidence.	Auditing costs reasonably tied to determining loss may be included.	Auditing expenses properly included as restitution; evidence deemed reliable.
Mistrial denial following order in limine violation	State violated order in limine; mistrial requested.	Violation was inadvertent; no substantial prejudice; no mistrial warranted.	No abuse of discretion; denial of mistrial affirmed.

State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15 (1999) (trial court may retain jurisdiction to decide restitution amount as condition of probation)
Bryant, 37 Kan. App. 2d 924 (2007) (restitution hearing procedures may be conducted after sentencing)
Trostle, 41 Kan. App. 2d 98 (2009) (modification of sentence post-sentencing not permitted; restitution separate)
Casto, 22 Kan. App. 2d 152 (1996) (restitution must be based on actual loss; guideposts for valuation)
Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655 (2002) (victim entitled to restitution up to actual loss; fair market value guidance)
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57 (1930) (wholesale vs retail pricing for damages in transit shortage case)
Bausch, 29 Kan. App. 2d 649 (2001) (audit costs may be included as restitution when a reasonable consequence of the crime)
Galloway, 268 Kan. 682 (2000) (un solicited reference to improper evidence may not mandate mistrial; limiting instructions available)
Maybin, 27 Kan. App. 2d 189 (2000) (mistrial denial when improprieties are not solicited by state and prejudice is minimal)
Rinck, 256 Kan. 848 (1995) (standard for mistrial when improper evidence is not solicited)
Hassey (State v.), State v. Hunt (2008) (limiting instruction adequacy assessment in assessing prejudice)