Cases | 2004-Ohio-529(Ohio Ct. App. 2004) | 2018
The defendant pled guilty to breaking and entering after he broke into an aircraft seat factory and stole 75 leather hides. The defendant was sentenced to eleven months in jail and was ordered to pay $31,983 in restitution to the factory’s insurance company, which had already paid that amount to the factory. The defendant appealed, arguing the order of restitution was improper because: 1) the order was in favor of an insurance company, not a victim; 2) the trial court did not consider his ability to pay the restitution; and 3) the amount was not supported by evidence of economic loss to the victim. The appellate court found: 1) that restitution to a victim’s insurance company is proper when the loss to the victim was reimbursed by the insurer; 2) the trial court’s order included a finding that the defendant would be able to pay the restitution and that such consideration is all that is required by the authorizing statute; and 3) the amount of restitution was based solely on the payment made by the insurance company to the factory and, without additional corroboration, cannot support the amount ordered because the payment of insurance proceeds does not necessarily represent the economic loss to the victim. Because the amount lacked supporting evidence, the order was improper. The order of restitution was remanded for redetermination.