State v. C.A.E.

¶1 The State appeals a trial court’s restitution order based on a juvenile adjudication of guilt.1 The State argues that the trial court improperly excluded the costs of unperformed but anticipated medical procedures because it misconstrued the “restitution” definition under RCW 13.40.020(22)2 and misapplied the prevailing case law. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

¶2 On October 5, 2006, 15-year-old C.E. assaulted 16-year-old I.F., causing severe damage to I.F.’s teeth and *723gums. As a result of the assault, I.F. underwent multiple medical and dental examinations and dental work, incurring $9,560 in…