Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Eastman

State v. Eastman

626 P.2d 956, 51 Or. App. 723, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 13, 1981
Docket10-79-08891, CA 18018
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 626 P.2d 956 (State v. Eastman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956, 51 Or. App. 723, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinions

[725]*725CAMPBELL, J.

PRO TEMPORE.

This prosecution arose out of the accidental collision between defendant’s car and a motorcycle. Two persons riding the motorcycle were severely injured. Defendant left the scene of the accident without first giving his name, address and motor vehicle registration number and without rendering reasonable assistance to the injured persons, as required by statute. He was convicted of felony hit and run. ORS 483.602.1 The court sentenced defendant to pay restitution to the injured motorcyclists in the amount of $25,180.74. Defendant appeals from the order of restitution.

The court’s authority to order restitution as part of a sentence is provided by statute. The court may order restitution to be made only to a victim of defendant’s criminal activities. ORS 137.106(1). Victim is defined in ORS 137.103(4) as any person who "has suffered pecuniary [726]*726damages as a result of defendant’s criminal activities.” (Emphasis supplied.) Pecuniary damages means all special damages "which a person could recover against the defendant in a civil action arising out of the facts or events constituting the defendant’s criminal activities.” ORS 137.103(2). Criminal activities are any offense for which defendant is convicted or any other criminal conduct which he admits. ORS 137.103(1).

We interpret these statutes as requiring a causal relationship between the conduct for which the defendant is convicted and the damages which the victim suffers. We find no such relationship in this case. Defendant’s criminal offense was leaving the scene of an accident in which he was involved without supplying statutorily required information and rendering reasonable assistance to injured persons. This conduct did not produce any injuries. The record contains no evidence that the victims’ injuries were aggravated by defendant’s failure to render immediate assistance. As far as we can tell, the injuries were the result of the accident which preceded defendant’s crime and are not subject to an order of restitution. Defendant’s conviction in no way establishes his liability for the damages suffered by the "victim.” Fault is not an element of the crime. The sentence of restitution was, therefore, unauthorized. State v. Dillon, 51 Or App 729, 626 P2d 959 (1981).

The dissent in this case is answered in State v. Dillon, supra.

The order of restitution is vacated.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Starkey
437 N.W.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1989)
State v. Madril
733 P.2d 365 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Eastman
637 P.2d 609 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Frey
631 P.2d 349 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Senner
630 P.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Kovach
625 P.2d 1388 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Dillon
626 P.2d 959 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Eastman
626 P.2d 956 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
626 P.2d 956, 51 Or. App. 723, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eastman-orctapp-1981.