State v. NRL, 249 Or. App. 321

Youth appealed a juvenile court restitution order of $114,071.13.
Youth argued Article I, section 17 right to jury trial applies to restitution in juvenile proceedings.
2003 amendments to ORS 419C.450 require victim restitution in full but permit schedules and relief if unable to pay.
Restitution in juvenile delinquency is intended to rehabilitate and deter, not fully compensate victims.
Court held juvenile restitution remains penal in nature despite amendments; not a civil recovery device.
Statutory structure allows civil actions for further damages but restitution itself is sanction part of disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 419C.450 amendments convert restitution to civil recovery	Youth: amendments make it quasi-civil	State: remains penal	Restitution remains penal, not civil
Whether the 2003 amendments foreclose jury trial on restitution	Youth: no jury trial due to civil nature	State: still no jury trial; penal disposition	Jury trial not required; restitution is penal in juvenile context
Whether inability to pay affects civil status of restitution	Youth: cannot require civil-type payment; discretion removed	State: payment can be scheduled; not civil	Inability to pay does not convert restitution to civil; courts may adjust payment schedule

State v. Dillon, 292 Or. 172 (1981) (restitution as sentencing device with rehabilitative purpose)
State v. Hart, 299 Or. 128 (1985) (restitution as penological, not quasi-civil recovery)
Hval v. State, 174 Or. App. 164 (2001) (three characteristics of penal restitution; no civil jury right)
Lakin v. Senco Prods., Inc., 329 Or. 62 (1999) (jury trial right tied to nature of civil cases at 1857 adoption)
Reynolds (State ex rel. Juv. Dept.), 317 Or. 560 (1993) (juvenile court sui generis; not criminal adjudication for jury right)
State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294 (1999) (legal standard for reviewing Article I, §17 claims)