State v. Jamie Lee Nelson, 161 Idaho 692

Nelson and husband were charged in 2012 with drug-related offenses and injury to a child; mistrial occurred on the first trial due to inadmissible evidence, and a second trial convicted them on drug-related charges but acquitted on injury to child.
At sentencing, the State sought restitution for prosecution costs under I.C. § 37-2732(k) and initially requested $4,746 (33.9–39 hours at $140/hour).
The district court awarded $2,535 under § 37-2732(k) after declining the $140/hour rate and finding $65/hour reasonable; State appealed, and CA vacated the award and remanded for a restitution hearing.
On remand, the State relied on an unsworn written “Statement of Costs” showing 33.9 hours at $140/hour; Nelson objected that costs for mistrial, husband’s conviction, and acquitted charges were included and that the evidence was unsworn.
The district court again awarded $4,746 based on the unsworn Statement of Costs; CA again vacated, concluding unsworn representations do not constitute evidence and remand would be improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unsworn cost statements can support restitution under § 37-2732(k).	State argued the cost statement suffices.	Nelson argued unsworn statements are not evidence and may overstate costs.	No; unsworn statements do not constitute substantial evidence.
Whether the district court properly limited restitution to expenses actually incurred for the conviction charge.	State contended costs incurred in prosecuting the charge resulted in conviction.	Nelson asserted costs from mistrial and related charges should be excluded.	Restitution must be for expenses actually incurred in prosecuting the convicted charge.
Whether the district court abused discretion by basing the award on inadequate documentation.	State relied on Statement of Costs as evidence of hours and rate.	Nelson argued lack of itemized, sworn, and task-specific entries.	Yes; the award was not supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the Court should remand for proper evidence or vacate the award.	State sought remand to cure evidentiary defects.	Nelson argued two prior opportunities already exhausted; no remand.	Court vacates the restitution award without remand.

State v. Weaver, 158 Idaho 167 (Ct. App. 2014) (certified accounting may suffice as substantial evidence for restitution)
Zepeda v. State, 152 Idaho 710 (Ct. App. 2012) (unsworn documents cannot be evidence)
State v. Gerardo, 147 Idaho 22 (Ct. App. 2009) (unsworn representations not evidence)
State v. Coutts, 101 Idaho 110 (1980) (sentencing cannot rely on unsworn representations)
State v. Kelley, slip op. 44178 (Idaho 2017) (factors for restitution where applicable)
Rocky Mountain Power v. Jensen, 154 Idaho 549 (Idaho 2012) (civil/contextual evidentiary standards for documents)
Inclusion, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Health and Welfare, 161 Idaho 239 (Idaho 2016) (clear statutory language can govern recovery of fees)
Heinze v. Bauer, 145 Idaho 232 (Idaho 2008) (unsworn documents generally not admissible to prove material facts)
Rocky Mountain Power v. Jensen, 154 Idaho 549 (Idaho 2012) (evidentiary sufficiency standards)