State v. Kappelman, 986 P.2d 603 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)

Cases | State v. Kappelman, 986 P.2d 603 (Or. Ct. App. 1999) | 2018

The defendant plead guilty to failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, and the trial court ordered probation, restitution, and a compensatory fine be paid to the victim. At the restitution hearing, the trial court ruled that the defendant could not present evidence as to whether he caused the accident because, by entering a plea of guilty, the defendant had accepted responsibility. On appeal, the defendant argued that the compensatory fine was not statutorily authorized and that restitution was improper because the trial court’s authority to order it required the court to find that the defendant had caused the accident. The court of appeals held that a guilty plea admits only all the facts necessary to support the material elements of the charge, which in this case did not include any facts amounting to an admission of guilt for causing the accident. The court vacated the order of restitution and remanded to the trial court for consideration of evidence to determine the cause of the accident. The court of appeals also held that since ORS § 137.101 requires a causal nexus between the criminal act and the victim’s injury or loss, losses arising from hit-and-run cases are not recoverable under the statute. The court vacated the compensatory fine.