State appeals court overturns hospital restitution order
An appellate panel has vacated a court order that required a Spokane man to pay a medical facility $14,563.49 for a replacement device he damaged, ruling that prosecutors failed to establish the actual financial loss suffered by the provider.
In an opinion issued August 6, 2026, Division Three of the Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the restitution ruling against the defendant and remanded the matter to Spokane County Superior Court for a new hearing on damages.
The court upheld the sentence imposed in the case.
In the published portion of the decision, the three-judge panel noted that state law prohibits trial courts from ordering restitution exceeding twice the victim's loss, and observed that the State offered no testimony regarding the facility's specific loss, providing only the retail price of a brand-new replacement unit.
The Incident
Court records indicate that while being escorted through a hallway at Providence Holy Family Hospital in Spokane in August 2023, the defendant paused, turned toward a piece of medical equipment, and destroyed it by slamming it onto the floor.
He told the responding officer that he threw the item because he believed it was a ghost.
The destroyed equipment was a Marco 5 Ultra Slit Lamp used for eye examinations.
Prosecutors charged the man with first degree malicious mischief. He entered a guilty plea, with court documents noting the plea was an Alford plea, allowing the defendant to maintain innocence regarding the facts while accepting a conviction.
The trial court imposed a drug offender sentencing alternative, placing the defendant on 24 months of community custody as part of a residential substance use disorder treatment program instead of incarceration.
The Restitution Dispute
Prosecutors subsequently sought a restitution order for $14,563.49, reflecting the cost the facility would incur to purchase a comparable new slit lamp.
The defendant provided a declaration stating that the manufacturer estimated repairs to the broken unit would cost $330.90, along with maintenance records from the facility dating back to December 2019.
A work order from July 2022, approximately one year prior to the incident, characterized the device as an "ol[d] horse [that] needs to be put out to pasture" and suggested the facility "get a newer model."
During a subsequent hearing, the State presented a statement from the facility's technician asserting the device could not be repaired, alongside a receipt confirming the payment of $14,563.49 for a new slit lamp. The defendant requested an additional hearing to allow an appraiser to testify regarding the market value of the used equipment.
The trial court denied the request, stating that the proceeding had a limited scope and that the defendant had not previously sought additional discovery, subsequently issuing an order for the full restitution amount. Court records identify Spokane County Superior Court Judge Raymond F. Clary as the judge who signed the order under review.
The Ruling
In the opinion issued for the panel, Judge Robert Lawrence-Berrey determined that the defendant did receive an evidentiary hearing, rejecting his first argument on appeal.
However, the court agreed with his second point: the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering payment for a new device when the State submitted no evidence concerning the value of the old one.
The court determined that even when a victim's loss cannot be directly proven, statutory limits restrict the trial court from awarding restitution exceeding twice the victim's loss amount, Judge Lawrence-Berrey wrote.
Prosecutors had argued that no accessible market existed for the specific model of used medical equipment in question.
The panel rejected this reasoning as grounds for the award, stating that the hospital could instead provide the year of purchase and the approximate cost of the prior device. Additionally, a hospital technician could estimate the remaining lifespan of the equipment, enabling the trial court to calculate a proportional value and award a sum no greater than twice that figure.
In the unpublished section of the opinion, the court dismissed a separate challenge regarding the offender score. The court concluded that the defendant waived this argument by signing a stipulation acknowledging that all five of his prior felony convictions contributed to the score calculation.
Outcome
The panel upheld the original sentence but reversed the restitution order, remanding the matter for a new evidentiary hearing.
Judges Megan Murphy and Tyson Hill joined in the opinion.
The defendant was represented on appeal by attorney Dennis W. Morgan of Republic, while the State was represented by Alexis Michelle Lundgren of the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
The published portion of the opinion carries precedential value and will appear in the Washington Appellate Reports.