State v. Mitchell

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4648

Syllabus

Assault misdemeanor restitution R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) economic loss direct and proximate result victim preponderance scar foreseeable consequence tattoo amount competent, credible evidence reasonable estimate victim's testimony abuse of discretion. Affirmed the trial court's order of restitution, which the victim was seeking for the cost of a tattoo to remedy a scar resulting from the appellant's crime. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution for an economic loss or detriment suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of the assault offense. The restitution order was supported by competent, credible evidence, which included testimony from the victim for electing the tattoo over a skin-graft procedure and an estimate for the tattoo.