Strongsville v. Kane, 2012 Ohio 3372

Kane was charged with one count of criminal mischief under Strongsville Codified Ordinances 642.11(A)(1) for damage to a fence on or about April 20, 2010.
At restitution hearing, Coulter presented an estimate to repair 169 boards and possibly post repairs, with evidence spanning multiple months of damage.
Kane pleaded no contest and was found guilty; he received five years of community control sanctions and restitution was later imposed.
The restitution amount was $1,808, based on the victim’s repair estimate and testimony at the hearing.
Kane objected to the restitution amount as hearsay and argues the amount exceeds the actual loss caused by his conduct.
Trial court denied the objected-on issues and ultimately upheld the restitution amount, which the court deemed part of the criminal sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hearsay admissibility at restitution hearing	Coulter argues hearsay evidence is admissible to prove damages.	Kane argues hearsay should be excluded from damages calculation.	Hearsay evidence was competent and credible; admissible for restitution.
Restitution must be tied to economic loss from the offense	Coulter's estimate reflects cost to repair damage caused by Kane.	Kane contends restitution exceeds the economic loss and is not reasonably related.	Restitution not exceeding economic loss; reasonably related to Kane's conduct; within discretion.

State v. Lalain, 8th Dist. No. 95857, 2011-Ohio-4813 (8th Dist. 2011) (restitution amount must reflect economic loss and is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179, 661 N.E.2d 271 (8th Dist. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard in restitution decisions)
State v. Moore-Bennett, 8th Dist. No. 95450, 2011-Ohio-1937 (8th Dist. 2011) (restitution cannot exceed economic loss from the offense)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 161 Ohio St.2d 197, 429 N.E.2d 885 (Ohio Supreme Court 1980) (presumption of regularity in sentencing proceedings; standard on objections)