Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109
Source:
Section 137.103 — Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors137.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Traffic infraction is not “criminal activity” as defined in this section. State v. Jameson, 37 Or App 151, 586 P2d 380 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Legislative intent is to make restitution flexible sentencing device by permitting court to order restitution for losses from criminal conduct admitted by defendant, as well as from conduct for which defendant is convicted. State v. Zimmerman, 37 Or App 163, 586 P2d 377 (1978)
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 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 these costs 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 this section and entitled to restitution under ORS 137.106. State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980)
Since insurance company which paid benefits to its insured, where insured was injured by criminal defendant, was subrogated to its insured’s rights, insurance company suffered pecuniary damages and was “victim” under this section. State v. Divers, 51 Or App 351, 625 P2d 681 (1981)
Damage defendant caused to police vehicles in course of committing crimes for which he was convicted were properly recoverable as “pecuniary damages” since these damages could have been recovered in a civil action. State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 637 P2d 602 (1981)
Adult and Family Services Division was not “victim” for purposes of this section where defendant was eligible recipient of medical services and he could not have been found civilly liable for them. State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 637 P2d 602 (1981)
Where defendants were convicted of failure to perform statutory duties following a motor vehicle accident, injuries resulting from these accidents were not “criminal activities” within meaning of this section. State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or 184, 637 P2d 609 (1981)
Though defendant contended that his admission, made during plea negotiations, of “civil liability” for transactions involving odometer rollbacks was not admission of criminal conduct under this section, court-ordered restitution to known victim of defendant’s act was proper. State v. Davis, 57 Or App 322, 644 P2d 623 (1982)
Order requiring defendant to pay restitution to Salem Police Department for amount received from sale of cocaine to Salem police officers was proper. State v. Pettit, 73 Or App 510, 698 P2d 1049 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendants obstructed truck traffic to protest logging operations and pleaded no contest to charges of disorderly conduct, restitution order could include special, but not general damages, and damages for lost truck time were improper where company owning trucks would incur cost involved whether trucks were running or sitting still. State v. Heath, 75 Or App 425, 706 P2d 598 (1985)
Where defendant was indicted for unauthorized use of motor vehicle “on or about the 22nd of April,” although van was stolen on April 21, where state offered evidence only of defendant’s use on April 22 he could be sentenced to restitution for pecuniary damages to vehicle that resulted from his April 22 use. State v. Sellers, 76 Or App 552, 709 P2d 768 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
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
Court may require restitution for criminal activities that defendant admits even if defendant was not charged with or convicted of those activities. State v. Panther, 99 Or App 184, 781 P2d 407 (1989)
Where company’s labor and service costs constituted pecuniary damages under this section, trial court did not err in ordering defendant to pay costs as restitution under ORS 137.106 for repair of electric meter with which defendant had tampered. State v. Louden, 101 Or App 367, 790 P2d 1182 (1990)
Because sales contract did not allow seller of house to recover incurred sales commission, criminal sentence requiring defendant-buyer to pay restitution for sales commission exceeded maximum allowed by law. State v. Kochajda, 114 Or App 283, 835 P2d 142 (1992)
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, 830 P2d 1100 (1992), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 118 Or App 1, 846 P2d 413 (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)
Court may treat replacement value of stolen property as proper measure of pecuniary damages. State v. Wise, 150 Or App 449, 946 P2d 363 (1997)
Person incurs expenses for purpose of receiving restitution if person is subject to those expenses, regardless of whether third party pays or writes off portion of those expenses. State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or App 25, 197 P3d 30 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Person suffers economic damages for purpose of receiving restitution if person expends money on behalf of victim or victim’s estate. State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or App 25, 197 P3d 30 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant injured defendant’s child and insurer paid child’s medical expenses and child is not “victim” under this section because “victim” is one against whom crime is committed and who incurred economic damages as result of crime, insurer is not entitled to restitution because insurer did not expend money on behalf of victim. State v. White, 299 Or App 165, 449 P3d 924 (2019)
Where victim missed work to voluntarily provide victim impact statement at sentencing hearing, lost wages were “economic damages” because attendance at hearing was “reasonably necessary” to protect victim’s right to make victim impact statement. State v. Nichols, 306 Or App 189, 473 P3d 1145 (2020)
Victim’s lost wages due to voluntarily attending pretrial hearings were not “economic damages” because victim’s attendance was not “reasonably necessary” to protect victim’s right to make victim impact statement. State v. Nichols, 306 Or App 189, 473 P3d 1145 (2020)