State v. Smith, 291 Or. App. 785

Defendant pleaded no contest to fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) after an incident in which he slapped, dragged, and struck the victim; he stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
Victim left in pain and later sought compensation from the Crime Victim Services Division (CVSD); she did not attend the restitution hearing.
CVSD claims examiner Flock testified CVSD paid $4,366.06 to the victim for physician visit, lost earnings, chiropractic care, and acupuncture, and that the victim’s doctor had marked those expenses reasonable and necessary on CVSD chart notes.
The state sought restitution in that amount; defendant objected that the state presented no evidence linking his criminal conduct to the claimed expenses.
The trial court awarded restitution based on Flock’s testimony that the payments were "related to" the case; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the record supported a non-speculative causal inference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved defendant's criminal activity caused the victim's economic damages for restitution under ORS 137.106	Flock's testimony that CVSD paid the victim and chart notes showing a doctor deemed expenses reasonable and necessary suffice to show the payments were "related to" the case and thus causally connected	State presented no testimony or medical evidence tying the victim's specific injuries or treatments to defendant's assault; payment by CVSD alone is insufficient to prove causation	Reversed restitution: Flock's testimony established the amount paid but did not permit a nonspeculative inference that defendant's criminal activity was the "but for" and reasonably foreseeable cause of those expenses

State v. Akerman, 278 Or. App. 486 (discusses causal-inference requirement for restitution)
State v. Herfurth, 283 Or. App. 149 (standard of review for restitution requirements)
State v. Carson, 238 Or. App. 188 (appellate review of trial-court factual findings)
State v. Kirkland, 268 Or. App. 420 (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the state)
State v. Parsons, 287 Or. App. 351 (elements required to support restitution award)
State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or. App. 25 (definition of economic damages)
State v. McClelland, 278 Or. App. 138 (economic damages must be objectively verifiable)
State v. Pumphrey, 266 Or. App. 729 (examples of sufficient causal evidence for restitution)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (reasonable-foreseeability is usually a factual question)
State v. Jordan, 249 Or. App. 93 (victim testimony supporting causal link to restitution)
State v. Almaraz-Martinez, 282 Or. App. 576 (insufficient record to support restitution amounts)
State v. Harrington, 229 Or. App. 473 (insufficient evidence to infer value of claimed losses)