State v. Morse, 106 A.3d 902

Restitution ordered for $2,427.36 for damage to ex-girlfriend’s car from October 2012 incident.
State sought uninsured-loss restitution; victim testified no insurance coverage was involved for the loss.
Car owner produced a repair estimate; defense challenged it as hearsay.
Court found the loss uninsured and the estimate reliable for purposes of restitution.
Defense argued the court failed to show the loss was uninsured on the record; written order later stated uninsured loss.
The court used repair cost rather than the pre/post-accident FMV method; defendant challenged but court and majority upheld the method.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the loss was uninsured as required for restitution	State contends loss was uninsured; owner testified no coverage	Defendant argues the State failed to prove lack of insurance	Yes, loss uninsured shown; error harmless even if not explicit in oral finding.
Whether the written finding satisfies the uninsured determination	Written finding confirms uninsured loss	Oral findings lacked insurance explicitness	Written finding controls; supports uninsured determination.
Whether admission of the repair estimate was erroneous as hearsay	Estimate corroborates damages; admissible under rules for sentencing	Estimate is hearsay and improperly admitted	Hearsay but admissible in restitution proceedings; reliability satisfied.
Whether using repair cost rather than FMV is permissible for damages	Repair cost reasonable measure; statutory framework allows it	FMV difference should be used	Repair cost method upheld; plain-error review not satisfied.

State v. Hughes, 188 Vt. 595 (Vt. 2010) (burden to show uninsured loss; preponderance standard)
Towle v. St. Albans Publ’g Co., 165 A.2d 363 (Vt. 1960) (hearsay; admissibility limits in damages evidence)
State v. VanDusen, 691 A.2d 1053 (Vt. 1997) (restoration proceedings; evidence rules relaxed in sentencing)
Gallagher, 554 A.2d 221 (Vt. 1988) (confrontation and reliability standards in sentencing hearsay)
Bouchard v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 816 A.2d 508 (Vt. 2002) (reliability factors for hearsay in expert-like testimony)
State v. May, 689 A.2d 1075 (Vt. 1996) (reasonable basis for estimating loss; mathematical certainty not required)
State v. Tetrault, 192 Vt. 616 (Vt. 2012) (plain-error review; admissibility of restitution evidence)
State v. Curtis, 443 A.2d 454 (Vt. 1982) (FMV vs. repair-cost methods for vehicle damage)
Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer, 193 Vt. 490 (Vt. 2013) (writing controls where conflict with oral findings)
United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (restitution evidence admissibility; sentencing context)
United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal rules of evidence not applicable to restitution)