Oregon Supreme Court, January 16, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • January 24, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> BURGLARY - Intent DUII - Statutory counterparts </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''RESTITUTION - Findings necessary to restitution a...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | RESTITUTION - Findings necessary to restitution award | |
| − | + | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
Latest revision as of 08:32, February 23, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
RESTITUTION - Findings necessary to restitution award
When defendant was convicted of harassment and acquitted of assault, court could not impose restitution for injury. Reversed.
The state offered evidence that defendant spat on the victim and also punched him and knocked out his tooth bridge. In reversing the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the restitution award, the Supreme Court explained that a trial court may only award restitution based on a jury verdict if the court can determine from the record that the jury necessarily found that defendant committed a crime supporting restitution. Because the jury could have based its award on evidence of spitting, the restitution award was not supported by the verdict.
State v. Andrews 366 Or 65 (January 16, 2020) (Walters) (Malheur County, Sullivan)
