State v. Ramos
267 Or. App. 164
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant set fires at her restaurant, then filed an insurance claim for lost/damaged contents; she was convicted of arson and attempted aggravated theft by deception.
- State sought restitution: parties stipulated to $42,532.32 for landlord/landlord’s insurer; trial court awarded an additional $28,417.98 to defendant’s insurer, Oregon Mutual.
- Oregon Mutual’s claimed expenses included attorney fees (Smith Freed), forensic-investigation invoices (CASE Forensics, ORCA), private investigator fees, and court-reporting fees for an examination under oath.
- Defendant did not raise constitutional objections at trial but, on appeal, argued restitution violated the Sixth Amendment and Article I, §17 (jury-trial right) and separately challenged specific restitution categories (attorney fees and expert witness testimony expenses; post-denial expenses).
- The court treated the constitutional arguments as unpreserved and declined plain-error review because the legal question is unsettled; it reviewed the statutory restitution challenges on the merits.
- On the merits, the court concluded Oregon Mutual’s expenses were objectively verifiable economic damages causally connected to defendant’s fraud and arson and therefore permissible restitution under ORS 137.106.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing restitution without jury findings violates the Sixth Amendment | Apprendi/Blakely principles do not plainly apply to restitution; precedent supports court factfinding | Apprendi/Southern Union require jury findings for facts increasing punishment (restitution) beyond statutory maximum | Not plain error; court declined to reach merits because law unsettled and precedent (McMillan) supports court determinations |
| Whether Article I, §17 requires jury trial on restitution facts | Restitution determinations are not civil jury issues and prior OR cases reject jury right | Article I, §17 preserves civil jury trial for restitution facts | Not plain error; Oregon precedent (Hart, N.R.L.) forecloses jury requirement |
| Whether attorney fees paid to insurer’s counsel are recoverable restitution under ORS 137.106 | Insurer’s attorney fees were incurred solely because of defendant’s fraudulent claim and are objectively verifiable economic losses | Fees are not proper restitution (defendant’s position as urged) | Held recoverable: but-for causation satisfied; fees necessary to investigate/defend claim and cooperated with public investigation |
| Whether expert witness fees for grand jury/trial testimony and post-denial expenses are recoverable | Expenses for experts’ grand-jury/trial attendance and post-denial cooperation were caused by defendant’s crimes and required by statute/regulatory reporting | Post-denial expenses are too remote or not compensable | Held recoverable: insurer required by law to report/incorporate in prosecutions; such expenses have sufficient causal link and are objectively verifiable |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (criminal factfinding for increases beyond statutory maxima)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (definition of "statutory maximum" for Apprendi line)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (criminal fines subject to Apprendi jury- factfinding rule)
- State v. McMillan, 199 Or. App. 398 (Oregon court holding restitution determinations do not violate Apprendi/Blakely)
- State v. Hart, 299 Or. 128 (Oregon Supreme Court: Article I, §17 does not require jury trial for restitution)
- State v. N. R. L., 354 Or. 222 (Oregon Supreme Court: juvenile restitution not civil; Article I, §17 not implicated)