Opinion ID: 1174723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the oregon restitution statutes

Text: In 1977, the state legislature enacted the present restitution statutes. Or. Laws 1977, ch. 371, §§ 1, 2, 6, 7. ORS 137.106 provides that a defendant may be required to pay restitution to crime victims: (1) When a person is convicted of criminal activities which have resulted in pecuniary damages, unless the presentence investigation report contains such a presentation, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, prior to or at the time of sentencing, evidence of the nature and amount of such damages. In addition to any other sentence it may impose, the court may order that the defendant make restitution to the victim. (2) In determining whether to order restitution which is complete, partial or nominal, the court shall take into account: (a) The financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of restitution will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant; (b) The ability of the defendant to pay restitution on an installment basis or on other conditions to be fixed by the court; and (c) The rehabilitative effect on the defendant of the payment of restitution and the method of payment. (3) If the defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution, the court shall at the time of sentencing allow the defendant to be heard on such issue. ORS 137.103 defines criminal activities, pecuniary damages, restitution and victim: (1) `Criminal activities' means any offense with respect to which the defendant is convicted or any other criminal conduct admitted by the defendant. (2) `Pecuniary damages' means all special damages, but not general damages, which a person could recover against the defendant in a civil action arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant's criminal activities and shall include, but not be limited to, the money equivalent of property taken, destroyed, broken or otherwise harmed, and losses such as medical expenses and costs of psychological treatment or counseling. (3) `Restitution' means full, partial or nominal payment of pecuniary damages to a victim. Restitution is independent of and may be awarded in addition to punitive compensation awarded under ORS 137.101. (4) `Victim' means any person whom the court determines has suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the defendant's criminal activities; `victim' shall not include any coparticipant in the defendant's criminal activities. [3] The present restitution statutes were enacted as a response to this court's interpretation of a former restitution statute, ORS 137.540(10), in State v. Stalheim, 275 Or. 683, 552 P.2d 829 (1976). [4] Former ORS 137.540(10), passed by the legislature in 1969, authorized a sentencing court to impose restitution only as a condition of probation. That statute authorized a sentencing court to require as a condition of probation that defendant    make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by [the] offense, in an amount to be determined by the court. The terms reparation or restitution and aggrieved party were not further defined. In Stalheim, this court limited the application of ORS 137.540(10) both as to persons entitled to receive restitution and as to the nature of the restitution which could properly be ordered. This court held that a trial judge could not award unliquidated damages as an item of restitution since it would leave the trial judge in the difficult position of performing a typical jury function, that of assigning value to losses such as pain and suffering, decreased earning capacity and loss of consortium. We construed the statute to authorize restitution only for liquidated or easily measurable losses resulting from the charged offense. The present restitution statutes were intended to codify parts of the Stalheim decision. ORS 137.103(2) codifies Stalheim by limiting permissible items of restitution to pecuniary damages, defined as special damages recoverable against the defendant in a civil action arising from defendant's criminal activities. ORS 137.109(1) specifically provides that a restitution order does not limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant's criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action. The statutes do circumscribe the authority of the court:    The court does not have authority to require whatever recompense it deems would have rehabilitative and deterrent effect. Its authority is limited to what would otherwise be special damages recoverable in civil proceedings by specified persons or entities.    State v. Dillon, 292 Or. 172, 180, 637 P.2d 602 (1981). ORS 137.103(2) specifically restricts recovery to special damages and, therefore, applies only to expenses actually incurred and to those expenses which are easily measurable, see State v. Dillon, 292 Or. at 174, 637 P.2d 602, and, as in this case, those future expenses reasonably predictable, see Harris v. Hindman, 130 Or. 15, 278 P. 954 (1929). The restitution ordered was for expenses, not pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, disability and the like. The defendant in this case does not challenge the specificity of the future expenses, but only that the total amount constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Oregon Constitution. ORS 137.106 makes clear that the amount of restitution to which a victim might be entitled does not automatically translate into what the court may require the defendant to pay. The actual amount of restitution imposed on the defendant is mitigated by subsections (2)(a)-(c). The court must consider the financial resources and the general ability of the defendant to meet the instalment payments. The rehabilitative effect on the defendant should also be taken into account by the court. There is an acknowledged need to balance the offender's economic circumstances, the victim's interest in the recovery and the punitive and reformative goals of these statutes. This is explicit in ORS 137.106(2), which authorizes the court to impose complete, partial or nominal restitution orders.