132 S Ct at 2356. In McMillan, by contrast, we explained that “[t]he statutory maximum is *** the amount of [economic] damages as determined by the court, and no more.” 199 Or App at 403. In other words, under Oregon’s statutory restitution scheme, there is only one restitution outcome that is consistent with a jury’s verdict — restitution for the full amount of the victim’s economic damages — and so restitution cannot go beyond the jury’s verdict or increase the penalty for the crime beyond the statutory maximum. By that reasoning, determinations that underlie a restitution award can never exceed the jury’s verdict. On the other hand, it may be — as defendant argues— that the “natural next step” is to apply reasoning similar to that in Southern Union Co. rev den, 332 Or 559 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Defendant — as of the time of her brief —
holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under ors 137106 holding that youth in juvenile delinquency proceeding was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under ors 419c450 holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances