Opinion ID: 1174723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Excessive fine in violation of Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 16

Text: Defendant's next state constitutional challenge to the restitution statutes is that the restitution order in this case violates Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution because it constitutes an excessive fine. Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution provides in relevant part: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.    Restitution orders are not denominated as fines and may be imposed in addition to fines. It therefore may be argued that the constitutional limitation of Article I, section 16, does not apply to restitution orders at all. But whether or not it is controlled by Article I, section 16, any sentence, including the amount of restitution ordered, is subject to appellate review of sentences for excessiveness under ORS 138.040, [9] review that is not limited to constitutional standards. In order to be an effective sentence, the amount of the restitution order must have a reasonable relationship to the criminal conduct of the offender. In this case, the amount of restitution ordered, even though a large sum, does reasonably relate to the defendant's conduct and the goals of sentencing. The amount of money awarded by the trial judge in this case was for present and future expenses only. It in no way measured nor amounted to the almost immeasurable harm the offender caused to his vulnerable victim. The statutory fine could have been $100,000. ORS 161.625. The payment schedule arranged by the judge was most modest. The restitution ordered under the circumstances in this case was not excessive. Further, we note that in the event of unforeseen circumstances the defendant has a right to petition to have all or part of the restitution order set aside. ORS 161.685(5). [10]