Appeals Court Reverses Restitution Order Over Broken Hospital Eye Device in Spokane Case

A Washington appellate court has thrown out a restitution order requiring a Spokane man to pay a hospital $14,563.49 for a new eye examination device he broke, ruling that the State never proved what the hospital actually lost when its aging machine was broken.

In an opinion filed today, August 6, 2026, Division Three of the Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order against Scott A. Charles and sent the case back to Spokane County Superior Court for a new evidentiary hearing. 

The court affirmed his sentence.

In the published portion of the opinion, the three-judge panel emphasized that Washington's restitution statute bars trial courts from awarding more than double the victim's loss, and that the State presented no evidence of the hospital's loss at all, only the price of a brand-new replacement.

The Background: A Broken Slit Lamp

According to court records, Charles was being escorted down a hallway at Providence Holy Family Hospital in Spokane in August 2023 when he stopped, turned toward a medical device, and broke it by throwing it on the floor. 

He told the investigating officer he threw the device because he believed it was a ghost.

The device was a Marco 5 Ultra Slit Lamp, which the hospital used for eye exams.

The State charged Charles with first degree malicious mischief. He pleaded guilty, and his sentence indicated the plea was an Alford plea, a type of guilty plea in which a defendant accepts conviction without admitting the underlying facts. 

The trial court entered a drug offender sentencing alternative, ordering 24 months of community custody as part of a residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative in lieu of confinement.

The Restitution Dispute

The State later asked the trial court to order restitution of $14,563.49, the price the hospital would pay for a comparable but new slit lamp.

Charles responded with a declaration stating the device's manufacturer believed the broken slit lamp could be repaired for $330.90, along with hospital technician work orders dating back to December 2019. 

In a July 2022 work order, roughly a year before the incident, the technician described the device as an "ol[d] horse [that] needs to be put out to pasture" and recommended the hospital "get a newer model."

At a continued hearing, the State presented a declaration from the hospital's technician stating the device could not be repaired, along with a receipt showing the hospital paid $14,563.49 for a new slit lamp. Charles asked for a further evidentiary hearing so an appraiser could testify about the used device's value. 

The trial court denied the request, explaining that the continued hearing had a limited purpose and that Charles had not earlier requested additional discovery, and entered a restitution order for the full amount. Court records identify Spokane County Superior Court Judge Raymond F. Clary as the judge who signed the order under review.

The Ruling

Writing for the panel, Judge Robert Lawrence-Berrey concluded that Charles did receive an evidentiary hearing, rejecting his first argument on appeal. 

But the court agreed with his second: the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the cost of a new device when the State submitted no evidence of the value of the old one.

"Even if a victim's loss is not provable, the trial court is limited by statute to awarding no more than double the victim's loss," Lawrence-Berrey wrote.

The State had argued that there was no readily accessible market for used medical equipment of that model. 

The panel disagreed that this justified the award, noting the hospital could instead provide the purchase year and approximate price of the old device, and its technician could estimate its remaining useful life, allowing the trial court to calculate a pro rata value and award no more than twice that amount.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court rejected Charles's separate challenge to his offender score, concluding he waived it by signing a stipulation agreeing that each of his five prior felony convictions counted toward the score.

The Outcome

The panel affirmed Charles's sentence, reversed the restitution order, and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing.

Judges Megan Murphy and Tyson Hill concurred in the opinion.

Charles was represented on appeal by Dennis W. Morgan, an attorney in Republic. 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.