In what circumstances will the trial court order a psychotherapist's statement that his or her services were not related to the crime?

In this case, there was ample evidence to support the trial court's restitution order. During the hearing, the prosecution repeatedly referred to a statement from the psychotherapist that the counseling was "100 percent related to the crime." While it is not clear from the record whether that statement was ever moved into evidence or even presented to the trial court, it is clear that defendant implicitly conceded both the existence of the statement and its contents.⁶ (People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151, 173; People v. Peters (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 671, 675-678.) In light of the fact that defendant had not introduced any evidence to the contrary, a statement from the therapist that his or her services were rendered to ameliorate the negative effect of defendant's criminal conduct is, we think, sufficient to support the trial court's restitution order.