State v. Algeo
311 P.3d 865
| Or. | 2013Background
- Petitioner is a crime victim who sought relief under ORS 147.515 asserting a violation of Article I, §42(1)(d) right to prompt restitution.
- Trial court ordered restitution equal to 10% of petitioner’s economic damages after finding most damages were caused by the victim’s own law violation, not defendant’s conduct.
- State proposed a supplemental judgment demanding full restitution under ORS 137.106(1); the court approved 10% and issued a supplemental judgment.
- Petitioner challenged only the constitutional claim; the State’s appeal from the supplemental judgment was not pursued in this court.
- Court clarifies statutory vs. constitutional remedies and analyzes whether Article I, §42(1)(d) creates a substantive right to full restitution under current statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, §42(1)(d) creates a substantive right to full restitution | Algeo argues §42 incorporates full damages. | State contends full amount required by statute. | No substantive right to full amount under §42. |
| Whether the claim is reviewable as a constitutional or statutory error | Petitioner seeks constitutional remedy and statutory error review. | State contests statutory error review via §147.535. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review statutory error on direct appeal here. |
| Whether ORS 137.106(1) controls the restitution amount in a constitutional claim | Argues full economic damages must be awarded. | Argues constitutional right does not fix amount; statutory framework applies. | Constitutional claim does not require full amount under ORS 137.106. |
| Whether the voters intended restitution to be fixed by statute or remain procedural | Victim relies on statute to define full restitution. | Legislature could define remedies, but constitutional right remains unsettled. | Voters did not fix substantive restitution amount via §42; not jurisdiction to decide further. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barrett, 350 Or 390 (2011) (expedited path for constitutional claims under ORS 147.517 et al.)
- State v. Stalheim, 275 Or 683 (1976) (restitution may be less than full amount prior to Article I, §42.)
- Howell v. Boyle, 353 Or 359 (2013) (constitutional remedy discussion for substantive vs. procedural rights.)
- Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Comm., 318 Or 551 (1994) (textual/contextual analysis of voter-measure rights.)
- State v. Hval, 174 Or App 164 (2001) (overview of restitution statutory amendments.)