Background
Abdulasas A. Abdi struck bicyclist Christopher Jones with his Jeep Compass while exiting a Shell gas station on Alkire Road in Columbus on June 23, 2023. According to the opinion, Abdi paused momentarily and then drove away. The collision pushed Jones approximately 20 feet, and he was struck again by a car traveling in the opposite direction. Jones was pronounced dead after being taken to a local hospital. Investigators used gas-station surveillance video, Bureau of Motor Vehicles information, Abdi’s driver’s-license photograph, and damage found during a warranted search of his vehicle to connect him to the collision.
The state indicted Abdi on March 22, 2024, charging him with third-degree felony failure to stop after an accident under R.C. 4549.02 and second-degree misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter under R.C. 2903.06. After initially pleading not guilty, Abdi entered an Alford plea on October 18, 2024, pleading guilty while maintaining actual innocence. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to 36 months on the felony charge and 19 days on the misdemeanor charge, with all but 79 days suspended. After 19 days of jail-time credit, he was to serve 60 days, followed by community control, and was subject to a license suspension.
The trial court also ordered $11,052 in restitution for funeral expenses. Jones’ father, identified as H.J., testified that the funeral and cremation cost “$3,200 and change” and that the cemetery quoted $8,000 to open an existing family plot for burial. The prosecutor used a cellphone to display electronic copies of a funeral receipt and burial quote uploaded to the Ohio Attorney General’s Crime Victim Compensation Portal. The trial court examined those documents and questioned H.J., but neither document was admitted into evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed the restitution order and overruled Abdi’s sole assignment of error, which challenged the order as unsupported by competent and credible evidence. Because the trial court did not identify whether restitution rested on the felony or misdemeanor offense, but both parties treated R.C. 2929.18 as governing, the court applied the felony-restitution standard without resolving that statutory question. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the issue was not whether the trial court abused its discretion; reversal required a clear and convincing finding that the order was contrary to law. The court noted in a footnote that misdemeanor restitution orders under R.C. 2929.28 are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) permits restitution based on the victim’s economic loss, capped at the loss suffered as a direct and proximate result of the offense, and requires the amount of full restitution to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. The record must contain competent and credible evidence permitting the amount to be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty. The court rejected Abdi’s argument that H.J.’s testimony about the $8,000 plot-opening charge was irredeemably confusing. Although H.J. initially did not directly answer the court’s questions, the final exchange confirmed that $8,000 was the quoted charge regardless of amounts already paid for the prepaid plots.
The court also held that the absence of admitted documentary evidence did not invalidate the order. A restitution order may be supported by victim testimony alone, and the Ohio Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing proceedings under Evid.R. 101(D)(3). The court distinguished State v. Reynoso, where the victim’s unsworn telephone statements supplied neither testimony-based nor documentary support. Here, H.J. gave sworn testimony, providing some quantum of evidence permitting appellate review. The court encouraged trial courts to admit exhibits underlying restitution orders to create a more robust record, even when not technically required, but concluded that Abdi had not shown the order was contrary to law.
Key Takeaways
- Felony restitution under R.C. 2929.18 is reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), not for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a clear and convincing finding that the order is contrary to law.
- Sworn victim testimony can support the amount of restitution without admitted documentary corroboration, although the court encouraged admission of underlying exhibits.
- The court applied the felony standard because the parties both relied on R.C. 2929.18, while expressly recognizing a different abuse-of-discretion standard for misdemeanor restitution.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the Tenth District applies the felony-sentence review standard to challenges targeting the evidentiary basis for restitution. It also separates the requirement of a reliable evidentiary basis from a requirement that receipts or quotes be formally admitted: sworn testimony may suffice, and sentencing proceedings are not governed by the Rules of Evidence.
At the same time, the holding is record-specific. The court did not endorse unexplained or unsupported restitution calculations; it found that the witness’s final answers clarified the disputed charge and that sworn testimony distinguished this record from Reynoso. Its recommendation that trial courts admit supporting exhibits signals a practical way to avoid similar appellate challenges.