State v. D. S.

                                753

        Submitted December 23, 2019, affirmed January 15, 2020


                    In the Matter of D. S.,
                           a Youth.
                    STATE OF OREGON,
                         Respondent,
                              v.
                            D. S.,
                          Appellant.
               Multnomah County Circuit Court
                         17JU09272;
                Petition Number 171023256;
                           A167682
                             

   Amy Holmes Hehn, Judge.
   Matthew J. Steven and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the
briefs for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General,
filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Brewer, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
754                                             State v. D. S.

        PER CURIAM
         Youth punched a man in the face, breaking his
glasses. For that conduct, she was found to be within the
delinquency jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts which,
if committed by an adult, would constitute fourth-degree
assault. On appeal, youth assigns error to the trial court’s
award of $979 in restitution to the victim for the cost of
replacing his glasses. Youth contends that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that that replacement
cost was “reasonable” under ORS 31.710(2)(a). Youth also
contends that awarding the victim the cost of replacing
his glasses would unjustly enrich the victim, given that
his glasses were several years old at the time that youth
broke them. The state responds that youth did not preserve
those contentions, that the evidence presented is sufficient
to establish that the amount awarded for the replacement
cost of the glasses was reasonable, and that the award does
not unjustly enrich the victim.
         We agree with the state that youth did not preserve
her contention that the evidence would not support a finding
that the $979 amount was reasonable and reject it for that
reason. The issue litigated below was the proper measure
of the victim’s damages. Youth argued that the victim was
only entitled to recover the $220 he paid for the glasses in
2013 (the glasses cost $933 at that time, but the victim’s
insurance paid the bulk of the cost). The state argued that
the victim, who no longer had insurance coverage for eyeglasses, was entitled to restitution for the full $979 that it
would cost him to replace his glasses. Not once did youth
suggest the evidence presented below, which included the
testimony about the replacement cost from an optician, was
not sufficient to show that the cost was reasonable. See State
v. Chastain, 

, 

 (2019)
(rejecting as unpreserved “more specific” objections to particular aspects of a restitution award when those objections
were raised for the first time on appeal).
        Youth’s arguments below arguably preserved her
contention that the victim would be unjustly enriched if
he were awarded the replacement cost of his glasses, but,
assuming that it is a cognizable argument in a restitution
Cite as 

 (2020)                             755

proceeding, that is a contention that we reject on its merits.
Youth’s conduct left the victim with a broken pair of glasses.
The state presented evidence that it would be costly to repair
the glasses and that, even with repairs, the glasses would
not be as durable as they had been. Under those circumstances, the trial court did not err in rejecting defendant’s
assertion that it would unjustly enrich the victim to require
youth to bear the cost of replacing the glasses.
        Affirmed.