State v. Haines
2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1292
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant was convicted of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment with a $1,000 compensatory fine payable to the victim’s family for counseling costs.
- The court stated the compensatory fine should be disbursed to the victim’s mother, with funds directed toward counseling, but did not introduce detailed evidence of counseling costs.
- Defendant challenged the fine on appeal, arguing there was no evidence of the victim’s economic damages as required by ORS 137.101, rendering the fine improper.
- The State urged that the issue was not preserved for review but could be considered if it was apparent on the face of the record.
- The court explained the statutory framework: compensatory fines apply only where the victim has economic damages and is eligible to receive funds.
- The court held that the victim did incur objectively verifiable economic damages (counseling costs) and that insurer payment did not negate incurring those costs; therefore no plain error occurred and the fine was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the compensatory fine was plain error without evidence of economic damages | State argued error not apparent on face of record; preserved issue not required when apparent. | Haines contends there was no evidence of economic damages to the victim to sustain the compensatory fine. | Not plain error; court affirmatively held no error on the face of the record. |
| Whether the victim incurred economic damages under ORS 137.101 despite insurer payment | State maintained damages existed; insurer payment does not negate incurrence. | Haines argued counseling costs were not proven as economic damages since paid by insurer. | Victim incurred objectively verifiable economic damages; insurer payment did not defeat incurrence; fine permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (2000) (unpreserved error may be reviewed if apparent on the record)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347 (1990) (requirements for error to be apparent on the face of the record)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (1991) (additional inquiry after determining error apparent on face of record)
- Donahue, 165 Or. App. 143 (2000) (economic damages include counseling costs)
- Kennedy, 227 Or. App. 281 (2009) (victim must show economic loss; counseling not yet incurred)
- Romero-Navarro, 224 Or. App. 25 (2008) (incurred expenses include third-party paid costs)
- Ceballos, 235 Or. App. 208 (2010) (insurer payments as damages context)
- Neese, 229 Or. App. 182 (2009) (compensatory fines question of law)