Cases | State v. Hart, 699 P.2d 1113 (Or. 1985) | 2018
After waiving the right to a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, and sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay restitution to the Children’s Services Division (CSD) for past and future expenses related to the victim’s injuries. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. On appeal to the supreme court, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the trial court’s order of restitution on three grounds: 1) because the monetary cost of the treatment is more like an element of the crime than a characterization of the defendant, the defendant’s right to a criminal jury trial was denied upon imposition of the restitution order; 2) because restitution is a civil remedy and the defendant was denied the right to a civil trial by jury; 3) because restitution is an excessive fine in violation of Article 1, section 16. The supreme court held under the Oregon Constitution: 1) the monetary cost of the injury is not an element of the crime of assault and, therefore, the defendant was not denied the constitutional right to a criminal trial; 2) restitution is an aspect of criminal law; the defendant is not entitled to a civil jury trial on the issue of restitution; 3) restitution orders are not considered “fines,” but are subject to review for excessiveness under ORS § 138.040, which requires a reasonable relationship between the order and the criminal conduct. Finally, the defendant argued that Oregon’s restitution statutes violate his right to a criminal jury trial under the federal constitution. The supreme court held that “[b]ecause a restitution hearing is part of a defendant’s sentencing, defendant has no constitutional right to a criminal jury trial under the United States Constitution.”