Defendant stated that he was involved with the criminal justice system since he was a juvenile. However, that evidence does not establish that defendant knew there was a need to preserve evidence. On direct examination, defendant testified that he had two felony convictions and was on probation at the time of the assault. However, there was no evidence that defendant ever went to trial or, if he did, that preservation of evidence was an issue at trial. However, even if the admission of that evidence by the trial court was in error, we agree with the state that the error was harmless.
Error is harmless if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.
In the light of defendant's direct testimony, there is little likelihood that the admitted evidence affected the verdict. We review the trial court's imposition of sentence for errors of law. All facial challenges to ORS 137.700 et seq. have been rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court. Defendant's remaining constitutional arguments do not require discussion. Defendant contends that the trial judge did not adequately consider defendant's ability to pay and asserts that the victim was a coparticipant in the crime and, therefore, not entitled to restitution.