State v. Yocum, 247 Or. App. 507

Four counts of first-degree burglary; victim’s diamond earrings stolen and not recovered.
Restitution hearing sought to replace earrings at $18,000; the jeweler estimated $18,000–$22,000 replacement value.
Victim testified to size/quality via description and drawing; she did not provide purchase price or exact diamond specs.
Defendant did not present evidence at restitution hearing; trial court set restitution at $18,000.
Trial court acknowledged limited valuation information but inferred replacement cost from jeweler’s estimate and victim’s testimony; defendant appealed.
Statutory framework requires evidence of economic damages to support restitution and allows court to set the amount based on such evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved the amount of economic damages.	Yocum argues damages not quantifiably proven.	Yocum contends evidence is speculative and insufficient.	Yes; evidence supported $18,000
Whether replacement cost of stolen earrings constitutes economic damages.	Ferrara allows replacement costs as economic damages.	Harrington suggests lack of value evidence.	Replacement cost is economic damages.
Standard and sufficiency of evidence review for restitution amount.	Ferrara/Mendez require quantifiable damages; court-apparent estimate acceptable.	Record lacks precise value; restitution improper.	Record supports restitution amount; not plain error.

State v. Ferrara, 218 Or.App. 57 (2008) (state must prove quantifiable damages for restitution)
State v. Harrington, 229 Or.App. 473 (2009) (no evidence of value requires reversal)
DeVaux v. Presby, 136 Or.App. 456 (1995) (economic damages are objectively verifiable)
State v. Edson, 329 Or. 127 (1999) (scope of restitution review)
State v. Mendez, 211 Or.App. 311 (2007) (preponderance standard for damages)
State v. Tippetts, 239 Or.App. 429 (2010) (remand when damages proof is insufficient)