State v. Islam
359 Or. 796
Or.2016Background
- Defendant Rasool Islam shoplifted 15 pairs of jeans from Macy’s and was convicted of second‑degree theft.
- At restitution hearing the State sought restitution equal to the retail price of the jeans; defendant argued restitution should be measured by the wholesale cost (replacement market) plus any proven additional losses (e.g., lost profits).
- The trial court awarded restitution based on retail price; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Oregon restitution statute (ORS 137.106) requires payment equaling the victim’s full economic damages, with “economic damages” defined by ORS 31.710 principles used in civil cases.
- The dispositive legal question was which market (retail vs. wholesale) governs valuation of goods stolen from a retail seller when goods are not recovered, and whether additional losses must be proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Macy’s) | Defendant's Argument (Islam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of economic damages for unrecovered goods stolen from a retailer | Retail market value (price displayed/sold at the place of theft) | Wholesale market value (cost to replace goods) is the correct baseline; retailer may recover additional losses only if proven | Measure is the market to which the seller would resort to replace the goods (generally wholesale); retail value not the default |
| Whether restitution may include lost profits and business costs without proof | Retail value captures retailer’s actual loss including anticipated profit and costs | Lost profits and other business losses must be separately proven; cannot be presumed by awarding retail price | Retailer can recover additional provable economic damages (e.g., lost profits), but they must be proved; absent proof, recovery limited to replacement market value |
| Interpretation of “loss of use” and replacement-cost language in ORS 31.710 | Argues replacement cost language supports retail replacement measure | “Loss of use” pertains to temporary deprivation, not permanent theft; replacement-cost phrase for damaged/recovered property only | "Loss of use" refers to temporary deprivation; replacement-cost language for damaged property is inapplicable to unrecovered theft |
| Use of civil conversion principles to measure restitution | State: conversion measure may point to retail value when goods displayed retail | Defendant: conversion principles (Restatement §911) point to market seller would use to replace goods (wholesale) | Restitution damages follow civil conversion rule: reasonable market value at time/place of conversion measured in the market seller would use to replace the goods (generally wholesale) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Work, 223 Or. 347 (1960) (conversion damages measured by reasonable market value at time and place of conversion)
- Mock v. Terry, 251 Or. 511 (1968) (retailer’s loss for damaged goods measured by wholesale value plus provable additional losses)
- State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (2016) (restitution under ORS 137.106 is informed by civil law concepts of recoverable economic damages)
- Pearson v. Schmitt, 259 Or. 439 (1971) (proof of lost profits requires reasonable certainty)
- United States v. Lively, 20 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal restitution statute interpretation; cited but not controlling here)