State v. Rosette, 410 P.3d 362

Police received a tip that defendant possessed a stolen Bobcat; a Bobcat dealer (Myers) identified manufacturer stamp numbers linking the machine to owner Douglas Coverdale.
Officers inspected the Bobcat at defendant’s property with his permission for a serial-number check; later an officer re-entered and seized the Bobcat without a warrant; the trial court found that seizure unlawful.
Defendant told police he bought the Bobcat circa 2004 from a third party and estimated its value at about $8,000; he did not verify the seller’s authority.
At trial Myers testified the Bobcat’s value was about $10,000 and later described its working condition based on examination after the unlawful seizure; defendant objected to testimony about post-seizure examination.
Jury convicted defendant of first-degree theft; trial court later ordered $26,697.10 restitution based on rental (loss-of-use) value for the indictment period, plus towing.
On appeal court addressed (1) admissibility/impact of Myers’s testimony about post-seizure examination and (2) the proper method and time frame for calculating restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of witness testimony about post-seizure examination	Testimony about value was admissible; condition evidence was inevitably discoverable and defendant didn’t object to the $10,000 estimate	Testimony about facts learned after illegal seizure should be excluded under exclusionary rule	Any error in admitting condition testimony was harmless; conviction affirmed (harmless beyond reasonable doubt)
Preservation of objection	State: defendant failed to preserve claim as he did not object to the $10,000 valuation	Defendant: preserved objection to post-seizure examination testimony during bench colloquy	Court assumed preservation for analysis but found error (if any) harmless
Proper restitution theory	Restitution may use loss-of-use formula when property temporarily unavailable	Defendant: restitution should not be loss-of-use given long possession; limit to indictment time frame	Restitution must be based on conversion (market-value) not loss-of-use; trial court erred
Proper time period for restitution calculation	State: restitution may start when property was stolen or when defendant admitted possession (2004)	Defendant: restitution limited to period alleged in indictment (2012–2013)	Court: restitution may cover whole period defendant admitted possession (begin in 2004); use value at time defendant gained possession less value at return, plus incidental costs; remand for resentencing

State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (Oregon 2003) (harmless-error standard under Oregon Constitution)
State v. Bray, 342 Or. 711 (Oregon 2007) (federal harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard quoted)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (standard for harmlessness of federal constitutional error)
State v. Islam, 359 Or. 796 (Oregon 2016) (distinguishing loss-of-use from conversion and interpreting ORS 31.710)
Becker v. Pacific Forest Industries, Inc., 229 Or.App. 112 (Oregon Ct. App. 2009) (conversion damages measure where property is returned)
Eldridge v. Hoefer, 45 Or. 239 (Oregon 1904) (when property is recovered, damages are value at conversion less value at return)