State v. Park, 505 P.3d 1026

Defendant Park was convicted of multiple sex offenses against two minors; at sentencing the court imposed $1,581.36 in restitution payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Account (CICA).
CARES Northwest performed forensic interviews of both minor victims during the investigation; the state’s restitution notice sought the same $1,581.36 amount.
The trial record contained no documentation showing whether CICA made any payments, who received payments, or what payments were for—no evidence that CICA reimbursed CARES or insurers.
Park argued on appeal that restitution plainly erred because there was no factual basis that CICA suffered objectively verifiable economic damages and CARES evaluations are not recoverable from the defendant.
The State conceded that the record does not show the restitution’s basis and agreed the court lacked authority to order restitution to CICA for CARES evaluations.
The Court of Appeals concluded the restitution award was plain error, reversed the restitution portion of the judgment, and otherwise affirmed without remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record supported imposition of $1,581.36 restitution to CICA (sufficiency of factual basis).	State conceded the record does not reflect what the amount was based on but pointed to CARES evaluations as the likely source.	Park: no evidence CICA expended money because record lacks any payments or invoices; thus no objectively verifiable economic damages.	Reversed restitution: no factual record showing CICA suffered $1,581.36 in economic damages; error was plain.
Whether the court had legal authority to order restitution to CICA for CARES evaluations/medical expenses.	State ultimately conceded the court lacked authority to order CICA reimbursement for CARES evaluations under precedent.	Park: CARES evaluations and minor’s medical expenses are not recoverable from defendant as CICA restitution without a recognized civil-liability basis.	Court agreed: existing case law disfavors ordering restitution for CARES evaluation costs absent a proper statutory/civil-liability basis.

State v. Herfurth, 283 Or App 149 (concluding insufficiency to order restitution to reimburse CARES absent civil-liability basis)
State v. White, 296 Or App 445 (explaining limits on restitution for medical/CARES evaluation expenses for unemancipated minors)
State v. Martinez, 250 Or App 342 (ordering restitution was plain error where record did not show insurer suffered economic damages)
State v. Tippetts, 239 Or App 429 (plain error where no record showed victims/mothers incurred claimed counseling costs)
State v. Ixcolin-Otzoy, 288 Or App 103 (state bears burden to prove nature and amount of economic damages for restitution)