State v. Humphrey

Summary

The court held that Humphrey's challenge to the restitution amount was preserved even though he did not object at sentencing because the challenge concerned whether the State met its evidentiary burden, not the admissibility of evidence. It further held that substantial competent evidence did not support the full award because the State documented only a portion of the claimed amount as medical expenses. The court reversed the appellate judgment, vacated the restitution order, and remanded for a restitution hearing.