State v. G. L. D.
253 Or. App. 416
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Youth was adjudicated delinquent for acts at Pacific High School, including arson, theft, burglary, and criminal mischief committed over three nights.
- On the relevant night, Youth, TM, and DW entered the woodshop and theft occurred of 19 laptops and the teacher’s laptop, followed by a fire.
- Damage to the school and replacement laptops totaled around $193,666.91; replacement laptops cost about $28,000, with evidence about original values and age of the stolen property.
- The juvenile court upheld jurisdiction on all counts and awarded restitution totaling $194,579.92, largely to insurers.
- Youth challenged merger of two burglary counts, the sufficiency of value for aggravated first-degree theft, and restitution to insurers; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merger of burglary counts | Burglary counts should merge into one. | Counts are separately punishable given a pause and separate intents. | Counts did not merge; there was sufficient evidence of a pause and separate intents. |
| Sufficiency of value for aggravated theft | Value over $10,000 shown by replacement-cost and age of laptops. | Replacement-cost evidence requires unascertainable market value; evidence insufficient if not equivalent. | Sufficient evidence that fair market value exceeded $10,000; replacement-cost evidence properly considered. |
| Insurance companies as victims for restitution | Insurance carriers are victims under restitution; E.V. supports this view. | Z.D.B. may limit or conflict with E.V. on victim definitions; insurers not necessarily victims. | Insurance companies are victims for restitution in juvenile proceedings; E.V. governs this context and controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. S.T.S., 236 Or App 646 (2010) (review in delinquency cases uses historical-fact deference; de novo only in exceptional cases)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. H. S., 237 Or App 385 (2010) (replacement-cost evidence must be tied to equivalent properties for value)
- State v. E. V., 240 Or App 298 (2010) (definition of victim and restitution in juvenile cases mirrors criminal-code definitions)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Z. D. B., 238 Or App 377 (2010) (causation for restitution; but does not undermine E.V.'s definitions)
- State v. Merrick, 224 Or App 471 (2008) (preservation of merger arguments when trial court considered the issue)