Case Reviews/Oregon Supreme Court - October 3, 2013

<summary hidden>
*Article I, § 42, the victims rights provision, provides procedural rights, not redress for substantive disputes
*No Jury Trial for Restitution in a Delinquency Case
*Misdemeanors Reduced to Violations Retain the Right to a Jury Trial Where They Retain Attributes of a Crime
</summary>

'''Article I, § 42 provides procedural rights and therefore cannot be used to address the “full amount” of restitution'''

Article I, § 42’s guarantee of the right to “receive prompt restitution” does not afford a victim the right to challenge whether their award was the “full amount” of their damages (as promised by ORS 137.106). Here the trial court concluded that victim/petitioner was contributorily negligent and awarded her 10% of her economic damages from the DUII defendant. That decision was not appealed. After a complex foray into statutory construction and voter’s intent, the Court concludes, “Article I, section 42(1)(d), does not grant petitioner a right to ‘restitution’ in the ‘full amount’ of her economic damages.” The authority of the trial court to import the civil notion of contributory negligence is not addressed. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060830.pdf State v. Algeo/J.W.P. v. State], 354 Or ___ (Oct. 3, 2013). 

'''No Jury Trial for Restitution in a Delinquency Case'''

Restitution determinations in juvenile delinquency proceedings are not civil, and therefore no right to a jury trial attaches. The court rejects arguments that because juvenile restitution is "not criminal" and is "compensatory", it is civil in nature. First, restitution reflects a sanction for conduct that is criminal in nature, and consequently constitutes as an aspect of criminal law. Second, although restitution does in a sense serve a compensatory purpose, it is not analogous to a civil private right of action for damages because the state is bringing the action for restitution rather than the victim. If awarded, restitution goes to the state, who then disperses the amount to the victim. 
The Court also rejects petitioner’s argument that Article I, section 42 of the Oregon Constitution and the juvenile restitution statute (ORS 419C.450) maintains that the primary purpose of restitution is to compensate victims, regardless of its deterrent or rehabilitative goals. In support it notes the structure of Article I, section 42, the fact that restitution has always had a primary purpose rooted in criminal law, and legislative history acknowledging that statutory mandatory restitution is a “tool to achieve penal and rehabilitative ends.” Affirmed. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060355.pdf State v. N.R.L.], 354 Or ___ (Oct. 3, 2013).

'''Misdemeanors Reduced to Violations Retain the Right to a Jury Trial Where They Retain Attributes of a Crime'''

When a prosecutor elects to reduce a defendant’s misdemeanor charge to a violation, the defendant still has a right to a jury trial so long as the case retains the attributes of a criminal prosecution. In ''Benoit'', the defendant was charged with trespass. In ''Fuller'', the defendant was charged with theft and attempted theft. The court found in both cases that (1) the offenses were criminal in type; (2) the potential fine was that of a misdemeanor conviction; and (3) the defendant was subject to pretrial arrest and detention. These characteristics indicated that the proceedings were criminal and therefore the defendant maintained the right to a jury trial and other protections of Article 1, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060858.pdf State v. Benoit], 354 Or ___ (October 3, 2013); [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060808.pdf State v. Fuller], 354 Or ___ (October 3, 2013).
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-03 15:49:17 -0700 | jwestover  }}
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-03 15:49:17 -0700 | alarson  }}
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-03 15:49:17 -0700 | cmaloney  }}
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-03 15:49:17 -0700 | Abassos:Alex  Bassos  }}