State Of Washington V. G.s.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: June 22, 2026
• Docket: 87544-2
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 87544-2-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION G.S.,

Appellant.

BUI, J. — G.S. pleaded guilty to a variety of felonies and a gross

misdemeanor crime of assault in the fourth degree. The court awarded restitution

related to the assault’s victim. On appeal, G.S. contends the medical bills do not

contain sufficient and reliable information connecting the crime to the victim’s

losses. We affirm.

FACTS

G.S. pleaded guilty to six charges: attempted robbery in the second

degree, felony harassment with threat to kill, assault in the fourth degree, two

counts of possession of stolen vehicle, and attempted burglary in the second

degree. In the plea statement, G.S. admitted to intentionally assaulting M.N. G.S.

also admitted that the facts contained in the affidavit of probable cause served as

the factual basis for the plea.

For the assault against M.N., the State sought restitution and submitted

three medical bills describing the services M.N. received while at Swedish

Edmonds Hospital’s Emergency Department. The trial court considered the

1 No. 87544-2-I /2

medical bills along with the information contained in the affidavit of probable

cause and ordered restitution for the same amount reflected in the medical bills.

G.S. timely appealed the restitution order. 1

ANALYSIS

The authority to impose restitution in a juvenile case is controlled by

statute. State v. Hiett, 154 Wn.2d 560, 563, 115 P.3d 274 (2005). The relevant

portion of Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) (ch. 13.40 RCW) provides that “the court

shall require the respondent to make restitution to any persons who have

suffered loss or damage as a result of the offense committed by the respondent.”

RCW 13.40.190(1)(a). The sentencing court “has discretion to determine the

amount, terms and conditions of the restitution.” State v. Bennett, 63 Wn. App.

530, 532, 821 P.2d 499 (1991). We review restitution orders for abuse of

discretion. Bennett, at 533.

Restitution awards “must be based on a causal relationship between the

offense charged and proved and the victim’s losses or damages.” State v. Keigan

C., 120 Wn. App. 604, 607, 86 P.3d 798 (2004). Restitution is appropriate for

damages that were a foreseeable consequence of a defendant’s criminal acts.

State v. Tetters, 81 Wn. App. 478, 914 P.2d 784 (1996). The victim need only

present evidence that “ ‘affords a reasonable basis for establishing the loss and

does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.’ ” Bennett, 63

Wn. App. at 535 (quoting State v. Horner, 53 Wn. App. 806, 808, 770 P.2d 1056

(1989)).

1 The State filed a cross-appeal, seeking review of the restitution order but it raised no

counter-assignments of error in its brief and thus abandoned the cross-appeal.

2 No. 87544-2-I /3

G.S. asserts the trial court erred in relying on hearsay and

unauthenticated facts contained in the medical bills. We disagree.

As an initial matter, the rules of evidence do not apply at restitution

hearings. ER 1101(c)(3); State v. Kisor, 68 Wn. App. 610, 620, 844 P.2d 1038

(1993). Evidence at a restitution hearing “must meet due process requirements,

such as providing the defendant with an opportunity to refute the evidence

presented, and being reasonably reliable.” Kisor, 68 Wn. App at 620. “[T]he

amount of restitution must be established with ‘substantial credible evidence’

which ‘does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.’ ”

Kisor, 68 Wn. App at 620 (quoting State v. Fambrough, 66 Wn. App. 223, 225,

831 P.2d 789 (1992)).

Here, the record contained substantial credible evidence to afford a

reasonable basis for restitution. According to the affidavit of probable cause, on

February 22, 2023, around 5:16 p.m., G.S. and M.N. were among a group of

juveniles at a shopping mall, a disagreement ensued, and the group went outside

the mall. G.S. picked M.N. off his feet and slammed M.N. to the concrete ground.

While M.N. was on the ground, G.S. punched and kicked M.N. When an aid crew

arrived, they tended to M.N.’s head and shoulders.

According to the medical bills, M.N. received services that included “X-Ray

exam of shoulder, [and] unilat[eral] ribs/chest”, “CT head/brain”, and “CT neck

spine”. These services were provided at “Swedish Edmonds Hospital ER” on the

same date of the assault. The bill for these radiation services totals $217.60. The

second medical bill was for the “EMERGENCY DEPT. VISIT”, for $359.17. The

3 No. 87544-2-I /4

third and final bill was for “emergency room”, “radiology-diagnostic” and “CT

scan”, totaling $1,809.40. All three medical bills identified the “patient” by M.N.’s

full name, and identified the date of service as the date of the assault on

February 22, 2023.

Based on this record before us, G.S.’s argument that there was no causal

connection between the medical expenses and the assault is unavailing. G.S.

relies on State v. Hahn, 100 Wn. App. 391, 996 P.2d 1125 (2000), but it does not

help his argument. In Hahn, the evidence lacked sufficient connection between

the victim’s specific treatment to their injuries, the total service cost differed from

the amount claimed by the Washington State Department of Social and Health

Services, and the service dates were removed in time from the date of the crime.

Hahn, 100 Wn. App. at 399-400.

In contrast, in this case, the medical services were provided on the same

date of the assault. The services of x-rays and imaging of the head, chest, and

rib area were for areas of the body associated with M.N. being lifted from his feet

and thrown to a concrete surface and then punched and kicked. Moreover, these

were the same body parts that M.N. complained about to law enforcement and

the aid crew when they responded to the assault. Thus, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in ordering restitution.

We affirm.

4 No. 87544-2-I /5

WE CONCUR: