State v. Villa-Guzman, 458 P.3d 960

In August 2016 police searched a motel room and charged Christina Villa-Guzman with multiple drug offenses (including felony trafficking, felony possession, and misdemeanor paraphernalia); the frequenting charge was dismissed pretrial.
After a three-day jury trial, Villa-Guzman was convicted only of the lesser‑included misdemeanor of being present where controlled substances were present; acquitted on trafficking and paraphernalia; jury deadlocked on one possession count.
The State sought $5,176.32 in restitution under Idaho Code § 37-2732(k), submitting an itemized cost sheet (signed but not sworn) covering prosecution work through the verdict.
At sentencing Villa-Guzman objected, arguing the requested costs largely related to charges for which she was not convicted and that the supporting documents were unsworn and error‑filled; the district court awarded the full amount.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it held (1) foundational evidentiary objections to restitution documents had to be preserved at the restitution hearing, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the full requested costs given the common investigative and prosecutorial work covering all charges.
Justice Stegner dissented, arguing the preservation requirement did not apply and that the award improperly failed to apportion costs to the single misdemeanor conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defendant preserved her foundational evidentiary objections to the State’s unsworn cost sheet	State: defendant failed to contemporaneously object to the foundational defects at the restitution hearing, so the challenge is unpreserved	Villa-Guzman: general objection to restitution was sufficient to preserve challenges to the sufficiency/foundation of the State’s proof	Court: preservation required—foundational evidentiary defects to restitution submissions must be objected to at the restitution hearing; issue not preserved on appeal
Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding full restitution for prosecution costs that arguably related to charges of which defendant was not convicted	State: costs were "actually incurred" in investigating and prosecuting the single factual episode; apportionment was unnecessary because the work supported proving the misdemeanor conviction	Villa-Guzman: cost sheet was a global summary including work on dismissed/acquitted charges; restitution must be for costs attributable to charges producing a conviction	Court: no abuse of discretion—costs through verdict were for common investigative/prosecutorial work and reasonably fell within § 37‑2732(k); apportionment not required on these facts

State v. Kelley, 161 Idaho 686, 390 P.3d 412 (2017) (restitution under § 37‑2732(k) is discretionary)
State v. Cunningham, 161 Idaho 698, 390 P.3d 424 (2017) (district court must base restitution on preponderance of evidence)
State v. Cunningham, 164 Idaho 759, 435 P.3d 539 (2019) (rules of evidence generally apply to restitution hearings)
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 421 P.3d 187 (2018) (abuse‑of‑discretion review framework)
State v. Weaver, 158 Idaho 167, 345 P.3d 226 (Ct. App. 2014) (restitution evidence standards)
State v. Yeoumans, 144 Idaho 871, 172 P.3d 1146 (Ct. App. 2007) (general rule on appellate sufficiency challenges)
State v. Draper, 151 Idaho 576, 261 P.3d 853 (2011) (preservation principle for appellate review)
State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688, 760 P.2d 27 (1988) (continuing objections required when trial court defers ruling on evidentiary motions)