State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 442 P.3d 1092

Background

Defendant met S (a 13‑year‑old), supplied methamphetamine, and compelled her into prostitution at a strip club; S later entered DHS custody and received treatment at Mingus Mountain residential facility in Arizona.
Defendant was convicted of multiple sexual and drug offenses, including three counts of compelling prostitution for acts at the strip club; trial court imposed consecutive prison terms and, on each of the three prostitution counts, a $50,000 compensatory fine payable to S (plus a $200 fine per count).
The State presented a letter indicating Mingus Mountain treatment cost approximately $168,000; DHS caseworker testified S was in DHS custody while at Mingus and that DHS/Medicaid would cover such treatment.
Defendant appealed the compensatory fines arguing (inter alia) the State failed to establish statutory prerequisites for compensatory fines, defendant’s ability to pay, and that imposing both compensatory and punitive fines on the same counts was plain error.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court plainly erred by imposing compensatory fines in addition to punitive fines and reversed that portion of the judgment without remand; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S "suffered economic damages" so a compensatory fine payable to S could be imposed	State: medical expenses are "incurred" by receiving treatment even if paid by third parties; costs of Mingus treatment therefore qualify as economic damages	Moreno‑Hernandez: a minor only incurs medical expenses if legally liable or obligated to pay; because S was in DHS custody, she did not incur the expenses	Court: S did not "incur" the medical expenses; under Palmore and ORS scheme medical expenses of an unemancipated child are attributed to the parent or custodian (here DHS), so compensatory fines payable to S were improper
Whether ORS 137.101(1) permits designation of part of a fine as compensatory and what prerequisites apply	State: ORS 137.101(1) allows designating part of a punitive fine as compensatory if victim suffered economic damages	Defendant: statutory prerequisites include objectively verifiable monetary loss and recoverability in civil action; those were not shown as to S	Court: reiterated two‑step process (impose fine under sentencing statutes; then designate compensatory portion under ORS 137.101), and held statutory prerequisites (objective economic loss and civil remedial avenue) must be satisfied; here they were not for S
Whether White v. Jubitz altered the rule that a minor’s medical expenses are damages of parents/guardian	State: White allows recovery of medical expenses based on treatment received regardless of payment obligation	Defendant: White does not eliminate common‑law rule attributing minor’s medical expenses to parent/guardian	Court: White did not overrule Palmore or ORS 31.700; Palmore remains good law and controls — a minor in DHS custody did not personally incur the expenses
Whether remand for resentencing is required after removing compensatory fines	State/Ct of Appeals: because punitive fines remained and compensatory fines could not be paid to S, no remand necessary	Defendant: sentencing interrelated; removing compensatory fines may alter overall sentencing balance and defendant’s ability‑to‑pay analysis	Court: remand required — trial court erred and other lawful options (e.g., compensatory fine payable to another victim or reallocation of fines) could affect sentence, so resentencing is necessary

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gutierrez‑Medina, 365 Or. 79 (recurring principles on economic damages in criminal sentencing)
State v. Ramos, 358 Or. 581 (tort‑damages principles applied in sentencing context)
State v. Islam, 359 Or. 796 (same)
State v. Barkley, 315 Or. 420 (construction of ORS 137.101 and prerequisites for compensatory fines)
White v. Jubitz Corp., 347 Or. 212 (collateral source rule and interpretation of "incur" for medical expenses)
Palmore v. Kirkman Laboratories, 270 Or. 294 (minor’s medical expenses are damages of parent/guardian)
Reinan v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., 270 Or. 208 (evidentiary aspect of collateral source rule)
Denton v. Int'l Health & Life Ins. Co., 270 Or. 444 (insured minor as party to recover insurance benefits)
State v. Edson, 329 Or. 127 (remand/resentencing principles)