State v. Murrell
242 Or. App. 178
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Murrell convicted of DUI under ORS 813.010(4) after damaging victim's fence and tree and scattering bottles; restitution sought for $2,625 damage and possible livestock risk.
- Sentencing court left restitution open; ordered to determine amount later within 90 days per ORS 137.106(1)(b).
- Original judgment entered October 20, 2008 noting restitution to be set by supplemental judgment.
- DA office staffing changes and file misplacement delayed action beyond 90 days; January 20, 2009 motion for supplemental judgment was filed.
- Restitution hearing held March 25, 2009; trial court found no real good cause for delay but noted defendant requested a restitution hearing and docket congestion as factors; amended judgment entered April 3, 2009 for $2,025.
- Court of Appeals vacated the amended judgment, holding no good cause to extend beyond 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause existed to extend restitution beyond 90 days | State argues delays were caused by docket congestion and late filing within the window | Murrell argues statute requires timely determination absent no good cause | No good cause; restitution timely required beyond 90 days |
| Whether prosecutorial inadvertence constitutes good cause under ORS 137.106(1)(b) | State relies on inadvertence to justify delay | Inadvertence not good cause per Biscotti | Inadvertence alone not good cause |
| Effect of defendant opposing the motion on the timing for restitution | Opposition triggers hearing necessity and delay justifies extension | Opposition cannot retroactively validate delay; timing still governs | Defense defeat; no valid extension beyond 90 days |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Biscotti, 219 Or.App. 296 (2008) (prosecutorial inadvertence not good cause to extend restitution deadline)
- State v. Johnson, 339 Or. 69 (2005) (objective standard for 'good cause' when no factual dispute)