State v. De Verteuil
304 Or. App. 163
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to DUII and fourth-degree assault after rear-ending the victim at a red light; the collision injured the victim and totaled her car.
- The crash destroyed items in and on the car, notably an infant car seat (≈3 years old; originally purchased new for $109) and a roof rack (≈6 years old; originally purchased new for $224).
- At a restitution hearing the trial court ordered defendant to pay $109 for the car seat and $200 for the roof rack, effectively awarding the victim the original purchase/new prices.
- Defendant objected and appealed, arguing restitution should equal the reasonable market value of the used items at the time and place of the crash, not the original new purchase prices.
- The State argued a limited exception (Barber) for household furniture/household goods permitted awarding original purchase price.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred as to the car seat and roof rack, vacated that portion of the restitution award, remanded for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of restitution for destroyed personal property | State: award victim’s out‑of‑pocket replacement/new purchase cost | De Verteuil: award reasonable market value of used property at time/place of destruction | Market value at time/place is the proper measure (general rule) |
| Applicability of Barber household‑goods exception | State: Barber exception allows alternative valuation (original/new cost) for household goods | De Verteuil: car seat and roof rack are not household furniture/goods; exception not applicable | Exception is limited to household furniture/personal effects with no market value; not applicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Islam, 359 Or 796 (discusses restitution and conversion valuation principles)
- Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 170 Or App 219 (conversion damages measured by market value)
- Barber v. Motor Investment Co., 136 Or 361 (limited exception permitting alternate valuation for certain household goods)
- Hall v. Work, 223 Or 347 (limits Barber exception; market value governs where property has market value)
- PGE v. Taber, 146 Or App 735 (reaffirms market value rule for destroyed property)
- Mustola v. Toddy, 253 Or 658 (conversion damages framework)