State v. EV, 240 Or. App. 298

Juvenile adjudicated for acts that, if adult, would constitute sexual abuse in the third degree (three counts against three victims).
State moved to order restitution to an insurance carrier and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Account for counseling expenses.
Youth objected that carriers and account are not “victims” for juvenile restitution.
Juvenile court ordered restitution: $761.20 to the insurance carrier and $311.80 to the account.
On appeal, the issue is whether the terms “victim” under the juvenile restitution statute include insurance carriers and the account, given statutory integration with criminal restitution definitions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are insurance carriers and the CI Account victims for juvenile restitution?	Youth argues no; defined victim in juvenile context is a person who suffered physical/emotional injury.	State contends that the statutory framework for restitution incorporates the criminal code’s victim definition, including carriers and the account.	Yes; carriers and the account are victims under the integrated restitution definition.
Does ORS 137.103 define restitution to apply in juvenile cases via ORS 419C.450?	Youth contends the juvenile statute defines victim differently.	State argues ORS 137.103 governs restitution terms incorporated into juvenile code.	Yes; the restitution definition from ORS 137.103 applies in juvenile cases.
Does ORS 419A.004(31) (general victim definition) alter the criminal-code-based victim definition for juvenile restitution?	Youth relies on a broader juvenile victim definition.	Court must apply the criminal-restoration framework unless context requires otherwise.	No; context requires applying the criminal-code victim definition, including carriers and account.

State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation; text in context best evidence of legislative intent)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (interpretation of statutes, context governs)