Weekly Roundup for the week of August 3, 2026
Division III
Restitution – Restitution may not exceed twice the victim’s loss, even if the precise amount of the loss cannot be easily proven. RCW 9.94A.753(3)(a). Here, the State failed to establish the amount of the hospital’s loss because it did not believe there was any reliable method for determining the value of the medical lamp that the defendant damaged. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered restitution of $14,563.49, the amount the hospital paid to purchase a replacement lamp. The appellate court remanded for a new restitution hearing to ensure that the award did not exceed twice the hospital’s actual loss. The court explained that the State could establish an approximate loss amount by presenting evidence of the lamp’s original purchase price and purchase date, estimating its remaining useful life at the time it was damaged, and calculating the value of the lost useful life on a pro rata basis. State v. Charles, No. 40514-1-III (Aug. 6, 2026, Published in Part)