State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001)

Cases | State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) | 2018

The defendant was convicted of failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, a “hit and run.” The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and ordered $500 compensation to the victim as a condition of probation. On appeal, the defendant argued on four grounds that the restitution statute authorized the order of restitution (ORS § 811.706), and therefore the order itself, was unconstitutional: 1) the statute is impermissibly broad; 2) the statute violates the Oregon constitution’s guarantee of a civil jury trial in two ways: a) “a damage award pursuant to ORS § 811.706 is civil in nature because the legislature failed to provide the same procedural protections that it has specified for restitution awards under ORS § 137.106; b) the statute does not require the trial court to consider the rehabilitative or deterrent effect of an order of restitution and the defendant’s ability to pay and therefore is civil in nature and requires a civil jury trial; 3) the statute allows disproportionate awards of money that are not causally related to the criminal conduct that is the basis for the hit and run; and 4) the defendant’s right to due process was violated because Oregon law did not allow for meaningful post-judgment review of the restitution order. The appellate court held that: 1) the universe of property damage for which the trial court is authorized to award damages and the range of victims are enumerated; therefore the statute does not impermissibly encompass punitive and general damages; 2) the defendant is not entitled to a civil jury trial because a) ORS § 811.706 has adequate procedural protections; b) the defendant “is entitled under the statute to a hearing on the imposition and the amount” of restitution where the trial court should take into consideration the rehabilitative and deterrent effect of the award; the defendant is also allowed to object on the basis of an inability to pay the amount ordered; 3) the Oregon Constitution requires a reasonable relationship of the amount of a restitution order to the criminal conduct of the offender and therefore the restitution order was not an excessive fine; and 4) post-judgment review based on a reasonable relationship between conduct of the defendant and the amount of restitution ordered is allowed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.