State v. Pumphrey
266 Or. App. 729
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant pled guilty to two counts of violating a court’s stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 163.750 and was convicted on those counts.
- Victim received a restitution award totaling $2,674.76 for expenses arising from the SPO violations.
- Defendant appeals, challenging five reimbursement items as not constituting economic damages under ORS 31.710(2) and not sufficiently causally linked under ORS 137.106.
- The appellate standard: review trial court findings supported by any evidence; adopt explicit/implicit factual findings; review legal conclusions de novo.
- Victim previously obtained a permanent SPO in 2010; defendant violated it in 2012, causing panic, medical treatment, missed work, and safety-costs (locks, phone changes, temporary housing, police reports); trial court tied these costs to defendant’s conduct and awarded restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disputed expenses are economic damages under ORS 31.710(2). | State argues expenses were objectively verifiable monetary losses caused by defendant’s conduct. | Steckler-based rationale that security measures for future prevention are not recoverable; costs weren’t reasonably incurred. | Yes; court finds the expenses fall within economic damages. |
| Whether there is a causal link between defendant’s criminal activity and the expenses. | State asserts but-for defendant’s SPO violations, victim wouldn’t have incurred costs. | Costs were unrelated to the acts charged; no direct connection shown. | Yes; but-for causation supported by record evidence and rational inference. |
| Whether Steckler controls, requiring exclusion of prevention-related expenses. | Record shows victim would not have taken security measures absent defendant’s conduct. | Steckler bar applies to preclude prevention costs. | Steckler distinguished; record supports recovering prevention-related expenses when connected to the defendant’s crimes. |
| Whether future impairment of earning capacity applies to restitution under ORS 137.106(1). | Not disputed here; focus is on current economic damages. | Future impairment not applicable under ORS 137.103(2)(a). | Inapplicable for restitution under this statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carson, 238 Or App 188 (2010) (establishes three prerequisites: criminal activity, economic damages, and causal link)
- State v. Stephens, 183 Or App 392 (2002) (causation can be shown by but-for standard in restitution)
- State v. Doty, 60 Or App 297 (1982) (damages may be a natural consequence of crime and recoverable)
- State v. Bullock, 135 Or App 303 (1995) (but-for causation; damages need not be direct results of crime)
- State v. Steckler, 236 Or App 524 (2010) (restitution for future-prevention costs not per se unrecoverable; context matters)