Restitution to victims
- objections by defendant
- disclosure to defendant
Source:
Section 137.106 — Restitution to victims; objections by defendant; disclosure to defendant, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors137.html.
Notes of Decisions
Condition of probation, requiring defendant to make restitution for items which she did not admit taking and which she was not convicted of taking, was improper. State v. Cox, 35 Or App 169, 581 P2d 104 (1978)
Trial court did not have authority to order restitution for traffic infraction, because it did not constitute criminal activity within meaning of this section. State v. Jameson, 37 Or App 151, 586 P2d 380 (1978), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Frey, 53 Or App 124, 631 P2d 349 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Court had authority to order defendant to make restitution to victims of two burglaries where defendant was convicted of one and charge was dismissed as result of plea negotiations. State v. Zimmerman, 37 Or App 163, 586 P2d 377 (1978)
Where defendant did not offer contrary evidence or request hearing under this section, trial court did not err in ordering amount of restitution based upon victim’s estimate. State v. Ivie, 38 Or App 453, 590 P2d 740 (1979). But see State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 268 P3d 760 (2011)
Order must specify amount of damages to be repaid and specific schedule for repayment. State v. Johnson, 39 Or App 711, 593 P2d 1216 (1979)
Where defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft but second count, which he expressly denied, was dismissed as result of plea agreement, court lacked authority to order restitution of victim of second theft. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or App 219, 605 P2d 736 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Where, upon resentencing, court set up schedule for repayment of victim and imposed additional restitution for county expenses in providing court-appointed counsel, defendant did not waive, by failure to make timely objection pursuant to this section, his objection to increasing of sanction, which resentencing court lacked authority to do. State v. Miller, 44 Or App 625, 606 P2d 689 (1980)
Where defendant was convicted of theft for stealing guitar from professional musician, costs incurred by victim to rent replacement guitar were proper element of restitution since they would be recoverable as special damages in civil action. State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980)
Pawnshop to whom defendant sold stolen guitar was “victim” under ORS 137.103 and entitled to restitution. State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980)
Where burglary was committed prior to effective date of this section, it was error for court to order defendant to pay restitution. State v. Crawford, 289 Or 151, 610 P2d 1232 (1980)
Insurance company which paid benefits to its insured who was injured by criminal defendant, suffered pecuniary damages and was victim entitled to restitution. State v. Divers, 51 Or App 351, 625 P2d 681 (1981)
Where defendant admitted his involvement in three thefts in plea petition, while pleading guilty to only one, it was not error for trial court to require restitution to victims of all three crimes. State v. Boswell, 52 Or App 535, 628 P2d 763 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Restitution is limited to amount that could be recovered as special damages in civil suit. State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 637 P2d 602 (1981)
Defendant who was convicted of failure to perform statutory duties following a motor vehicle accident could not be required to pay restitution for damages resulting from the accident because they did not result from defendant’s criminal activities. State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or 184, 637 P2d 609 (1981)
Because restitution is aspect of criminal law, civil right to jury trial is not implicated. State v. Rosenbaum, 57 Or App 11, 643 P2d 1284 (1982); State v. McGinnis, 105 Or App 154, 803 P2d 1525 (1991)
Where defendant contended that his admission, made during plea negotiations, of “civil liability” for transactions involving odometer rollbacks was not admission of criminal conduct under ORS 137.103, court-ordered restitution to known victim of defendant’s act was proper. State v. Davis, 57 Or App 322, 644 P2d 623 (1982)
If loss would not have occurred but for criminal activities of defendant, amount of restitution is determined separately from amount established by conviction or admission. State v. Doty, 60 Or App 297, 653 P2d 276 (1982)
Interest ordered to commence on execution of restitution order was improper because interest is not recoverable as special damages in civil action. State v. Dickenson, 68 Or App 283, 680 P2d 1028 (1984)
Attorney fees are not recoverable “special damages” if incurred in preparation of civil suit arising out of defendant’s criminal conduct. State v. O’Brien, 96 Or App 498, 774 P2d 1109 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Trial court may not order defendant, president of corporation, to pay restitution to victim where defendant did not admit personal liability even though admitting his corporation was liable for restitution purposes. State v. Voetberg, 99 Or App 112, 781 P2d 387 (1989)
Where company’s labor and service costs constituted pecuniary damages under ORS 137.103, trial court did not err in ordering defendant to pay costs as restitution for repair of electric meter with which defendant had tampered. State v. Louden, 101 Or App 367, 790 P2d 1182 (1990)
Where defendant waived his right to be heard and object to imposition of restitution in trial court, defendant waived right to challenge imposition of restitution on appeal. State v. Carpenter, 101 Or App 489, 791 P2d 145 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Lunski, 101 Or App 495, 791 P2d 146 (1990)
Sentencing court has no authority to order defendant to pay restitution as condition of parole. State v. Gaines, 103 Or App 646, 798 P2d 730 (1990)
Where restitution was ordered without following proper procedure, restitution order was reviewable as disposition exceeding maximum allowed by law. State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416, 833 P2d 321 (1992); State v. Jones, 113 Or App 425, 833 P2d 320 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney fees are recoverable “special damages” if incurred to assure indictment and criminal prosecution, notwithstanding that victim may subsequently file civil suit arising out of defendant’s criminal conduct. State v. Mahoney, 115 Or App 440, 838 P2d 1100 (1992), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 118 Or App 1, 846 P2d 413 (1993)
Where pecuniary damages included future expenses that were reasonably predictable, but amount of which was not readily ascertainable, order to pay actual amount of future expenses was proper. State v. Allen, 122 Or App 587, 858 P2d 176 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Restitution to parent of child victim was not available where civil recovery of parent’s damages would be based on tort theory not formally adopted by Oregon courts. State v. Carrillo, 125 Or App 52, 865 P2d 379 (1993)
“But for” standard of causation applies in determining whether damages are eligible for restitution. State v. Bullock, 135 Or App 303, 899 P2d 709 (1995)
Because restitution requires proof of causal relationship between criminal activity and pecuniary damage suffered, subsequent damage to stolen property does not automatically impute to thief. State v. Bonnie, 135 Or App 314, 898 P2d 1365 (1995)
Bankruptcy discharge of civil debt to victims, whether occurring before or after restitution order, does not discharge obligation to make restitution imposed as part of criminal sentence. State v. Sprang, 137 Or App 418, 904 P2d 1092 (1995)
Lost profits are includable in restitution award. State v. Jurado, 137 Or App 538, 905 P2d 274 (1995)
Restitution order is not part of presumptive sentence and therefore not precluded from review. State v. Marquez, 139 Or App 379, 912 P2d 390 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Criminal Injuries Compensation Account is “victim” eligible to receive restitution for expenses paid. State v. Spino, 143 Or App 619, 925 P2d 101 (1996)
Where defendant’s conviction covers criminal activities during specified time period, court may not award restitution for damages arising from events occurring outside time period. State v. Howett, 184 Or App 352, 56 P3d 459 (2002)
Court may not order payment of restitution after finding person guilty except for insanity. State v. Thomas, 187 Or App 762, 69 P3d 814 (2003)
Department of Corrections routine maintenance and operation expenses are not recoverable through restitution by prisoner. State v. Wilson, 193 Or App 506, 92 P3d 729 (2004)
Under pre-2003 version of statute, court is required to consider defendant’s ability to pay only in determining restitution amount and payment terms or conditions, not in deciding whether to impose restitution. State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496, 106 P3d 670 (2005), modified 199 Or App 521, 112 P3d 433 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Determination of restitution amount is not increase in penalty for offense beyond prescribed statutory maximum requiring jury determination. State v. McMillan, 199 Or App 398, 111 P3d 1136 (2005)
Where jury determined amount of damage to reach criminal verdict, order for restitution in different amount based on preponderance of evidence did not reexamine fact tried by jury. State v. Mendez, 211 Or App 311, 155 P3d 54 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
Court may order restitution without conviction only where record clearly reflects that defendant’s admission leaves no question defendant committed criminal conduct that defendant was not convicted of committing. State v. Thorpe, 217 Or App 301, 175 P3d 993 (2007)
Lack of diligence by prosecution is not “good cause” for delaying entry of judgment requiring defendant to pay restitution. State v. Biscotti, 219 Or App 296, 182 P3d 269 (2008)
Victim’s estate is not person within meaning of statute and, therefore, not entitled to restitution. State v. Patton, 237 Or App 46, 238 P3d 439 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant objects to amount of restitution and requests hearing, trial court must accede to defendant’s request. State v. Umphery, 241 Or App 36, 248 P3d 449 (2011), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s failure to request restitution hearing does not preclude appellate court from reviewing restitution award for plain error. State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 268 P3d 760 (2011)
“Full amount of the victim’s economic damages” means amount of damages incurred as of date of trial court’s determination of restitution and does not include future impairment of earning capacity. State v. Jordan, 249 Or App 93, 274 P3d 289 (2012), Sup Ct review denied
This provision does not limit time frame during which trial court may resentence defendant as means of remedying violation of victim’s constitutional rights under Article I, section 42, of Oregon Constitution. State v. Thompson, 257 Or App 336, 306 P3d 731 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant set fire to defendant’s restaurant and filed insurance claim, and insurance company hired attorneys to investigate claim, this section permits insurance company to collect award of attorney fees as economic damages that were reasonably foreseeable. State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016)
Where defendant was charged with unlawful possession of raptor under ORS 498.002 for having dead red-tailed hawk in freezer, trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution based on damages under ORS 496.705, which does not supply values of wildlife for purposes of assessing restitution under this section. State v. Shockey, 285 Or App 718, 398 P3d 444 (2017)
Comparative fault scheme applicable to nonintentional torts does not apply to criminal restitution. State v. Gutierrez-Medina, 287 Or App 240, 403 P3d 462 (2017), aff’d 365 Or 79, 442 P3d 183 (2019)
Where defendant agrees to pay restitution for economic damages, defendant is not barred from challenging imposition of additional unlawful restitution. State v. Minor, 297 Or App 461, 443 P3d 695 (2019)
Court may not impose restitution for case based on crime that is not part of conviction and that defendant did not admit committing. State v. Partain, 298 Or App 449, 446 P3d 561 (2019)
For purposes of restitution for economic damages under section, court cannot determine necessity of medical services by common knowledge of type of services provided or from generic one-line entries on insurer’s payment ledger. State v. Dickinson, 298 Or App 679, 448 P3d 694 (2019)
This section, as amended in 2013, focuses on whether there was good cause for district attorney’s delay in presenting evidence rather than other causes of delay. State v. Taylor, 300 Or App 626, 455 P3d 609 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
In order to impose restitution, court must be able to determine, from record and conviction, that jury found that defendant committed specific criminal act permitting restitution. State v. Andrews, 366 Or 65, 456 P3d 261 (2020)
When defendant is convicted of crime that results in destruction of personal property, amount of restitution is reasonable market value of property at time and place of criminal conduct that caused destruction, plus interest. State v. De Verteuil, 304 Or App 163, 467 P3d 80 (2020)
Causal connection between defendant employee’s theft and employer’s inability to pay taxes was too speculative to support award of restitution. State v. Emerine, 308 Or App 211, 480 P3d 308 (2020)
Because defendant’s bank robbery traumatized bank manager, causing bank manager to use three days of sick time that could have been used at another time, lost sick time was economic damage for which restitution may be imposed. State v. Buswell, 308 Or App 389, 479 P3d 341 (2021)
Detailed repair estimates and photographs of damaged truck were sufficient to permit reasonable factfinder to infer that repair costs, paid by insurance company, were reflection of relevant market rate and thus reasonable. State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 367 Or 614, 482 P3d 62 (2021)
Because trial court lacks authority under this section to make findings about defendant’s specific criminal act, in context of guilty plea or admission, trial court may award restitution only for damages that arose from specified admitted criminal acts and may not award restitution for other acts defendant may have committed. State v. Storm, 318 Or App 809, 509 P3d 132 (2022)
Attorney General Opinions
Board requirement that parolee make restitution as condition of parole, (1981) Vol 42, p 117
Up to date