State v. McLaughlin
243 Or. App. 214
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- McLaughlin was convicted of first-degree theft under ORS 164.055 for removing a bronze plaque from the Portland Police Bureau Central Precinct and leaving it on the street.
- The plaque’s replacement cost was testimony at trial, valued at $2,000.
- After trial, McLaughlin moved for arrest of judgment; the court denied.
- At sentencing, the State sought restitution and a restitution hearing; it argued ORS 137.106(1) required evidence before sentencing.
- The trial court found pecuniary loss and ordered restitution after a post-judgment restitution hearing totaling $421.65.
- We remanded for resentencing because the State failed to timely present evidence of the damages required by ORS 137.106(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment adequately states the offense given the alleged culpable mental state | State argues indictment alleges theft under ORS 164.055(1) and includes the statutory mens rea. | McLaughlin contends the indictment misstates the culpable mental state (claims it should be intentional). | Indictment valid; it states an offense. |
| Whether restitution was properly ordered under ORS 137.106(1) given evidence timing | State asserts sufficient evidence of damages was presented during trial to satisfy ORS 137.106(1). | State failed to timely present evidence of the nature and amount of damages. | Restitution improper; the State failed to timely present sufficient evidence of damages. |
| Whether the restitution order must be vacated and resentenced due to evidentiary timing | N/A beyond assertion of timing. | N/A beyond assertion of timing. | Remand for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bass/Landis, 90 Or.App. 350, 752 P.2d 334 (Or. App. 1988) (interpretation of accusatory instruments with statute definitions)
- State v. House, 37 Or.App. 131, 586 P.2d 388 (Or. App. 1978) (reading instrument terms with statutory culpable states)
- State v. Jim/White, 13 Or.App. 201, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. App. 1973) (elements of theft and offense stated in indictment)
- State v. Noble, 231 Or.App. 185, 217 P.3d 1130 (Or. App. 2009) (restitution sequence and ORS 137.106 interpretation)
- State v. Ferrara, 218 Or.App. 57, 178 P.3d 250 (Or. App. 2008) (restoration of restitution framework and timing concerns)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent in ORS 137.106)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1993) (statutory interpretation guiding agency determinations)