Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE PARROTT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-08-01
Citations: 102 Or. App. 677
Docket Number: P-087584; CA A63004
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE PARROTT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 102
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 30,
affirmed August 1, 1990
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE PARROTT, Appellant.
(P-087584; CA A63004)
795 P2d 1093
Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He was placed on probation on the condition, inter alia, that he pay $112 as restitution for damage to the automobile with which he collided. He argues that restitution was improper.
Under ORS 137.106(1), a defendant may be required to pay restitution for pecuniary damages caused by his criminal activities. Defendant does not dispute that there was criminal activity and pecuniary damage. What is missing, he asserts, is the element that defendant's criminal conduct caused the damaging collision or that defendant intended to cause the damage. State v. Stratton, 99 Or App 538, 783 P2d 41 (1989), rev den 309 Or 522 (1990), is to the contrary.
Affirmed.