State v. Haines
238 Or. App. 431
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Haines was convicted of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment plus a $1,000 compensatory fine allocated to the victim's family for counseling costs.
- The trial court ordered the compensatory fine to be paid to the victim's mother for counseling expenses attributable to the crime.
- The court did not offer detailed evidence of counseling costs or frequency.
- On appeal, Haines argued there was no record evidence of economic damages to the victim, making the compensatory fine improper.
- The state's position was that the error, if any, was not apparent on the face of the record and that counseling costs constitute economic damages under the statute.
- The court concluded the compensatory fine was not plain error because the victim incurred economically verifiable counseling costs and insurers paying those costs does not defeat incurrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing a compensatory fine without documented economic damages is plain error. | Haines: no economic damages proven. | State: damages evidenced by counseling costs; insurer payments do not negate damages. | Not plain error; injury incurred and damages validated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drinkwater, 231 Or.App. 6 (2009) (relates to compensatory fines and economic damages evidence)
- State v. Donahue, 165 Or.App. 143 (2000) (premises for compensatory fines; economic damages required)
- State v. Kennedy, 227 Or.App. 281 (2009) (economic loss must be evidenced by counseling or similar costs)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347 (1990) (test for error apparent on face of record; standards for ORAP 5.45(1))
- State v. Neese, 229 Or.App. 182 (2009) (compensatory fines are questions of law)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (1991) (discretion in deciding whether to correct error under ORAP 5.45(1))