State v. Toth

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Remedies
  • Date Filed: 06-13-2019
  • Case #: S065929
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Balmer, J. for the Court; En Banc
  • Full Text Opinion

There are three requirements for a compensatory fine: “[t]he first is that the crime must ‘result[] in injury.’” State v. Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or 175, __ (2019) (quoting ORS 137.101(1)). Second, "the statutory definition of 'victim' in ORS 137.103(4) must be met, which usually requires a showing that the victim suffered 'economic damages,' defined by ORS 31.710 as 'reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services***.'" Third, “‘those damages were recoverable against the defendant in a civil action.’” Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or at __ (quoting State v. Barkley, 315 Or 420, 438, 846 P2d 390 (1993)).

The State petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court’s award of a compensatory fine, in addition to a punitive fine, was plain error. On review, the State argued that in accepting the plea offer, which allowed the trial court to impose a fine, Defendant stipulated to all the prerequisites, including imposing a compensatory fine, and thus no factual findings were needed. There are three requirements for a compensatory fine: “[t]he first is that the crime must ‘result[] in injury.’” State v. Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or 175, __ (2019) (quoting ORS 137.101(1)). Second, "the statutory definition of 'victim' in ORS 137.103(4) must be met, which usually requires a showing that the victim suffered 'economic damages,' defined by ORS 31.710 as 'reasonable charges necessarily incurred for medical, hospital, nursing and rehabilitative services and other health care services***.'" Third, “‘those damages were recoverable against the defendant in a civil action.’” Moreno Hernandez, 365 Or at __ (quoting State v. Barkley, 315 Or 420, 438, 846 P2d 390 (1993)). The Court found the victim did not suffer economic damages from medical expenses and rejected the States argument that Defendant stipulated to the lower court imposing a compensatory fine.

The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part to remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. 

Advanced Search


Back to Top