State v. Hogue

No. 941               December 26, 2024                      117

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                 JERMEY BYRON HOGUE,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                Douglas County Circuit Court
                   22CR34181; A180587

   Steve H. Hoddle, Judge.
   Submitted September 24, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
   TOOKEY, P. J.
   Affirmed.
118                                            State v. Hogue

        TOOKEY, P. J.
         Defendant appeals from a supplemental judgment
awarding restitution. Defendant pleaded no contest to a
fourth-degree assault charge resulting from a physical altercation between him, the victim, and another person. After a
hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $634.96 in
restitution for medical costs. Defendant assigns error to the
restitution award, contending that the state failed to prove
that his own criminal activities caused the victim’s concussion and that the medical treatment the victim received was
necessary. We affirm.
          “There are three prerequisites to ordering restitution: (1) criminal activities, (2) economic damages, and (3)
a causal relationship between the two.” State v. Gaul, 

, 

 (2019); ORS 137.106. The
criminal activity must be the reasonably foreseeable but for
cause of the victim’s economic damages. Gaul, 

. As relevant here, “economic damages” means monetary
losses including “reasonable charges necessarily incurred”
for the victim’s health care services. ORS 137.103(2)(a); ORS
31.705(2)(a).
        We review a restitution order for legal error and
are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if they are
supported by any evidence in the record. Gaul, 301 Or at
143. We state the facts in accordance with that standard of
review.
         As part of defendant’s no contest plea, he admitted
that he “unlawfully and knowingly cause[d] physical injury
to [the victim].” The victim testified at the restitution hearing that during the fight with defendant, a passenger got
out of defendant’s car and hit him in the back of the head.
He very briefly lost consciousness, fell to his knees, and
then continued fighting with defendant. He reported experiencing dizziness, headache, pain, and confusion. When he
sought medical treatment, he presented with head injuries
on both the left side and the back of his head; the symptoms he reported support an inference that his head injuries
resulted in a concussion. Indeed, the victim was ultimately
diagnosed with a concussion.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)            119

         Defendant first argues that the state failed to prove
that he caused the victim’s concussion, because another person hit the victim in the back of the head during the fight
between defendant and victim. But the restitution statute
requires only that a person’s crime of conviction “result[ ]
in” economic damages, ORS 137.106(1)(a), and this record
supports an inference that defendant’s conduct resulted in a
head injury, such that the victim would seek treatment for it.
The evidence in the record is sufficient to support an inference that defendant’s participation in criminal conduct—
a fight with the victim that drew the participation of defendant’s passenger—caused the victim to suffer injuries to
his head, and that those injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the fight. See State v. Jensen, 

, 

 (2021) (injuries caused by
coassailants were “reasonably foreseeable result of the joint
assault that defendant began”).
         Defendant argues further that there is no evidence
in the record to show that the costs of the victim’s treatment for a concussion were medically necessary. State v.
Perdew, 

, 

 (2020) (the state
must present evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the medical treatment was necessary). To the contrary, the
record supports a finding that the victim’s hospital visit and
subsequent CT scan were medically necessary. The victim
testified that he sought medical treatment the day after the
assault because he felt dizzy, had a severe headache, and
was experiencing confusion. The medical records indicate
that a CT scan was ordered based on his head injuries and
reported loss of consciousness. That evidence is sufficient
to support a finding that the victim’s hospital visit and CT
scan were medically necessary.
        Affirmed.