State v. Kamaunu, 341 Or. App. 257

Defendant Kamaunu was convicted of multiple offenses stemming from a domestic dispute, including destroying the victim's cell phone.
The victim purchased the phone for $599.99 on contract 17 months before the incident and later replaced it after destruction.
The original restitution judgment (including the phone and medical costs) was reversed and remanded for lack of notice/hearing.
On remand, after a restitution hearing, the trial court awarded $599.99 in restitution for the phone (contract price), plus undisputed medical costs.
Defendant did not object to the restitution amount at the hearing and later argued on appeal that the trial court used the wrong measure of value.
The appellate court reviewed for plain error as the defendant did not preserve the challenge at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate measure for restitution value of phone	Contract price reflects loss	Restitution should be based on fair market value, not contract	Error, if any, not plain; affirm restitution award
Whether alleged error qualifies as plain error	Not plainly erroneous	Error was legal, obvious, and reviewable as plain error	Error not obvious; not subject to plain error review
Discretion to correct alleged plain error	No basis for exercise of discretion	Court should exercise discretion due to improper calculation	Would not exercise discretion; restitution stands

State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 614 (Or. 2021) (defining "economic damages" for restitution as objectively verifiable out-of-pocket losses recoverable in civil action)
State v. De Verteuil, 304 Or App 163 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (market value of property generally used for restitution but not always required)
Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 170 Or App 219 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (damages not always based solely on market value; context matters)
State v. Boyar, 328 Or App 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2023) (replacement cost may be proper measure of restitution depending on circumstances)