State v. Lyons, 2014 Ohio 2239

Lyons pled guilty to Grand Theft (3rd degree) in 2013; sentencing followed with restitution hearing.
Stegemoller testified to values of stolen items, including a pistol ($350), a piggy bank ($50–$75), a change jar ($200–$300), and a box of coins with jewelry and $850 in cash.
Stegemoller valued rings (including solid gold wedding rings) and the coin collection, estimating the coin value between $7,000 and $8,000 based on a local jeweler’s assessment.
Lyons testified the coins were worth far less and that she sold the coins for scrap silver, receiving $420 for silver dollars, $80 for other coins, plus amounts received for jewelry, change, and the revolver.
The trial court ordered restitution of $9,420, payable at $100 per week, based largely on Stegemoller’s testimony and perceived credibility.
Lyons appealed alleging the restitution amount was excessive and largely based on unreliable hearsay; the appellate court affirmed, holding the amount bore a reasonable relationship to the loss and was supported by competent, credible evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the restitution amount excessive given the evidence?	Lyons	Lyons	No; amount bears reasonable relation to loss and rests on credible evidence.

State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Ohio 1998) (rest sentencing exceptions to the strict Rules of Evidence (habeas-like context))
State v. Tuemler, 2005-Ohio-1240 (Ohio 2005) (hearsay exception in restitution proceedings allowed)
State v. Hipsher, 2012-Ohio-3206 (Ohio 2012) (restitution must be supported by credible evidence)
State v. Stamper, 2010-Ohio-1939 (Ohio 2010) (restitution must bear reasonable relationship to actual loss)
State v. Jackson, 2005-Ohio-5981 (Ohio 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for restitution decisions)
State v. Hatmaker, 2013-Ohio-3202 (Ohio 2013) (victim’s loss may be substantiated by victim testimony or documentary evidence)