2015 ORS 137.106¹
Restitution to victims
  • objections by defendant
  • disclosure to defendant

(1)(a) When a person is convicted of a crime, or a violation as described in ORS 153.008 (Violations described), that has resulted in economic damages, the district attorney shall investigate and present to the court, at the time of sentencing or within 90 days after entry of the judgment, evidence of the nature and amount of the damages. The court may extend the time by which the presentation must be made for good cause. If the court finds from the evidence presented that a victim suffered economic damages, in addition to any other sanction it may impose, the court shall enter a judgment or supplemental judgment requiring that the defendant pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that equals the full amount of the victim’s economic damages as determined by the court. The lien, priority of the lien and ability to enforce the specific amount of restitution established under this paragraph by a supplemental judgment relates back to the date of the original judgment that is supplemented.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a court may order that the defendant pay the victim restitution in a specific amount that is less than the full amount of the victim’s economic damages only if:

(A) The victim or, if the victim is an estate, successor in interest, trust or other entity, an authorized representative of the victim consents to the lesser amount, if the conviction is not for a person felony; or

(B) The victim or, if the victim is an estate, successor in interest, trust or other entity, an authorized representative of the victim consents in writing to the lesser amount, if the conviction is for a person felony.

(c) As used in this subsection, "person felony" has the meaning given that term in the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.

(2) After the district attorney makes a presentation described in subsection (1) of this section, if the court is unable to find from the evidence presented that a victim suffered economic damages, the court shall make a finding on the record to that effect.

(3) No finding made by the court or failure of the court to make a finding under this section limits or impairs the rights of a person injured to sue and recover damages in a civil action as provided in ORS 137.109 (Effect of restitution order on other remedies of victim).

(4)(a) If a judgment or supplemental judgment described in subsection (1) of this section includes restitution, a court may delay the enforcement of the monetary sanctions, including restitution, only if the defendant alleges and establishes to the satisfaction of the court the defendant’s inability to pay the judgment in full at the time the judgment is entered. If the court finds that the defendant is unable to pay, the court may establish or allow an appropriate supervising authority to establish a payment schedule, taking into consideration the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of restitution will impose, with due regard to the other obligations of the defendant. The supervising authority shall be authorized to modify any payment schedule established under this section.

(b) As used in this subsection, "supervising authority" means any state or local agency that is authorized to supervise the defendant.

(5) If the defendant objects to the imposition, amount or distribution of the restitution, the court shall allow the defendant to be heard on such issue at the time of sentencing or at the time the court determines the amount of restitution.

(6)(a) At least 10 days prior to the presentation described in subsection (1) of this section, the district attorney shall:

(A) Disclose to the defendant the names of any witnesses that may be called during the presentation; and

(B) Provide the defendant with copies of, or allow the defendant to inspect, any exhibits that will be used or introduced during the presentation.

(b) If the court finds that the district attorney has violated the requirements of this subsection, the court shall grant a continuance to allow additional time for preparation upon request of the defendant. Any additional time granted under this paragraph may not count toward the 90-day time limitation described in subsection (1) of this section. [1977 c.371 §2; 1983 c.724 §1; 1993 c.533 §1; 1997 c.313 §23; 1999 c.1051 §124; 2003 c.670 §1; 2005 c.564 §2; 2007 c.425 §1; 2007 c.482 §1; 2013 c.388 §1; 2015 c.9 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Condi­tion of proba­tion, requiring defendant to make restitu­tion for items which she did not admit taking and which she was not convicted of taking, was improper. State v. Cox, 35 Or App 169, 581 P2d 104 (1978)

Trial court did not have authority to order restitu­tion for traffic infrac­tion, because it did not constitute crim­i­nal ac­tivity within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Jameson, 37 Or App 151, 586 P2d 380 (1978), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Frey, 53 Or App 124, 631 P2d 349 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Court had authority to order defendant to make restitu­tion to victims of two burglaries where defendant was convicted of one and charge was dismissed as result of plea negotia­tions. State v. Zimmerman, 37 Or App 163, 586 P2d 377 (1978)

Where defendant did not offer contrary evidence or request hearing under this sec­tion, trial court did not err in ordering amount of restitu­tion based upon victim's estimate. State v. Ivie, 38 Or App 453, 590 P2d 740 (1979). But see State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 268 P3d 760 (2011)

Order must specify amount of damages to be repaid and specific schedule for repay­ment. State v. Johnson, 39 Or App 711, 593 P2d 1216 (1979)

Where defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft but sec­ond count, which he expressly denied, was dismissed as result of plea agree­ment, court lacked authority to order restitu­tion of victim of sec­ond theft. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or App 219, 605 P2d 736 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where, upon resen­ten­cing, court set up schedule for repay­ment of victim and imposed addi­tional restitu­tion for county expenses in providing court-appointed counsel, defendant did not waive, by failure to make timely objec­tion pursuant to this sec­tion, his objec­tion to increasing of sanc­tion, which resen­ten­cing court lacked authority to do. State v. Miller, 44 Or App 625, 606 P2d 689 (1980)

Where defendant was convicted of theft for stealing guitar from professional musician, costs incurred by victim to rent replace­ment guitar were proper ele­ment of restitu­tion since they would be recoverable as special damages in civil ac­tion. State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980)

Pawnshop to whom defendant sold stolen guitar was "victim" under ORS 137.103 (Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109) and entitled to restitu­tion. State v. Lewis, 49 Or App 447, 619 P2d 684 (1980)

Where burglary was committed prior to effective date of this sec­tion, it was error for court to order defendant to pay restitu­tion. State v. Crawford, 289 Or 151, 610 P2d 1232 (1980)

Insurance company which paid benefits to its insured who was injured by crim­i­nal defendant, suffered pecuniary damages and was victim entitled to restitu­tion. State v. Divers, 51 Or App 351, 625 P2d 681 (1981)

Where defendant admitted his involve­ment in three thefts in plea peti­tion, while pleading guilty to only one, it was not error for trial court to require restitu­tion to victims of all three crimes. State v. Boswell, 52 Or App 535, 628 P2d 763 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Restitu­tion is limited to amount that could be recovered as special damages in civil suit. State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 637 P2d 602 (1981)

Defendant who was convicted of failure to perform statutory duties following a motor vehicle accident could not be re­quired to pay restitu­tion for damages resulting from the accident because they did not result from defendant's crim­i­nal activities. State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or 184, 637 P2d 609 (1981)

Because restitu­tion is aspect of crim­i­nal law, civil right to jury trial is not implicated. State v. Rosenbaum, 57 Or App 11, 643 P2d 1284 (1982); State v. McGinnis, 105 Or App 154, 803 P2d 1525 (1991)

Where defendant contended that his admission, made during plea negotia­tions, of "civil liability" for transac­tions involving odometer rollbacks was not admission of crim­i­nal con­duct under ORS 137.103 (Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109), court-ordered restitu­tion to known victim of defendant's act was proper. State v. Davis, 57 Or App 322, 644 P2d 623 (1982)

If loss would not have occurred but for crim­i­nal activities of defendant, amount of restitu­tion is determined separately from amount es­tab­lished by con­vic­­tion or admission. State v. Doty, 60 Or App 297, 653 P2d 276 (1982)

Interest ordered to commence on execu­tion of restitu­tion order was improper because interest is not recoverable as special damages in civil ac­tion. State v. Dickenson, 68 Or App 283, 680 P2d 1028 (1984)

Attorney fees are not recoverable "special damages" if incurred in prepara­tion of civil suit arising out of defendant's crim­i­nal con­duct. State v. O'Brien, 96 Or App 498, 774 P2d 1109 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court may not order defendant, president of corpora­tion, to pay restitu­tion to victim where defendant did not admit per­sonal liability even though admitting his corpora­tion was liable for restitu­tion purposes. State v. Voetberg, 99 Or App 112, 781 P2d 387 (1989)

Where company's labor and service costs constituted pecuniary damages under ORS 137.103 (Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109), trial court did not err in ordering defendant to pay costs as restitu­tion for repair of electric meter with which defendant had tampered. State v. Louden, 101 Or App 367, 790 P2d 1182 (1990)

Where defendant waived his right to be heard and object to imposi­tion of restitu­tion in trial court, defendant waived right to challenge imposi­tion of restitu­tion on ap­peal. State v. Carpenter, 101 Or App 489, 791 P2d 145 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Lunski, 101 Or App 495, 791 P2d 146 (1990)

Sentencing court has no authority to order defendant to pay restitu­tion as condi­tion of parole. State v. Gaines, 103 Or App 646, 798 P2d 730 (1990)

Where restitu­tion was ordered without following proper pro­ce­dure, restitu­tion order was reviewable as disposi­tion exceeding max­i­mum allowed by law. State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416, 833 P2d 321 (1992); State v. Jones, 113 Or App 425, 833 P2d 320 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Attorney fees are recoverable "special damages" if incurred to assure indict­ment and crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tion, notwithstanding that victim may sub­se­quently file civil suit arising out of defendant's crim­i­nal con­duct. State v. Mahoney, 115 Or App 440, 838 P2d 1100 (1992), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 118 Or App 1, 846 P2d 413 (1993)

Where pecuniary damages included future expenses that were reasonably predictable, but amount of which was not readily ascertainable, order to pay actual amount of future expenses was proper. State v. Allen, 122 Or App 587, 858 P2d 176 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Restitu­tion to parent of child victim was not available where civil recovery of parent's damages would be based on tort theory not formally adopted by Oregon courts. State v. Carrillo, 125 Or App 52, 865 P2d 379 (1993)

"But for" standard of causa­tion applies in determining whether damages are eligible for restitu­tion. State v. Bullock, 135 Or App 303, 899 P2d 709 (1995)

Because restitu­tion requires proof of causal rela­tionship between crim­i­nal ac­tivity and pecuniary damage suffered, sub­se­quent damage to stolen prop­erty does not automatically impute to thief. State v. Bonnie, 135 Or App 314, 898 P2d 1365 (1995)

Bankruptcy discharge of civil debt to victims, whether occurring before or after restitu­tion order, does not discharge obliga­tion to make restitu­tion imposed as part of crim­i­nal sen­tence. State v. Sprang, 137 Or App 418, 904 P2d 1092 (1995)

Lost profits are includable in restitu­tion award. State v. Jurado, 137 Or App 538, 905 P2d 274 (1995)

Restitu­tion order is not part of presumptive sen­tence and therefore not precluded from review. State v. Marquez, 139 Or App 379, 912 P2d 390 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Criminal Injuries Compensa­tion Account is "victim" eligible to receive restitu­tion for expenses paid. State v. Spino, 143 Or App 619, 925 P2d 101 (1996)

Where defendant's con­vic­­tion covers crim­i­nal activities during specified time period, court may not award restitu­tion for damages arising from events occurring outside time period. State v. Howett, 184 Or App 352, 56 P3d 459 (2002)

Court may not order pay­ment of restitu­tion after finding per­son guilty except for insanity. State v. Thomas, 187 Or App 762, 69 P3d 814 (2003)

Depart­ment of Correc­tions routine maintenance and opera­tion expenses are not recoverable through restitu­tion by prisoner. State v. Wilson, 193 Or App 506, 92 P3d 729 (2004)

Under pre-2003 version of statute, court is re­quired to consider defendant's ability to pay only in determining restitu­tion amount and pay­ment terms or condi­tions, not in deciding whether to impose restitu­tion. State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496, 106 P3d 670 (2005), modified 199 Or App 521, 112 P3d 433 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

Determina­tion of restitu­tion amount is not increase in penalty for of­fense beyond prescribed statutory max­i­mum requiring jury determina­tion. State v. McMillan, 199 Or App 398, 111 P3d 1136 (2005)

Where jury determined amount of damage to reach crim­i­nal verdict, order for restitu­tion in different amount based on preponderance of evidence did not reexamine fact tried by jury. State v. Mendez, 211 Or App 311, 155 P3d 54 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Court may order restitu­tion without con­vic­­tion only where record clearly reflects that defendant's admission leaves no ques­tion defendant committed crim­i­nal con­duct that defendant was not convicted of com­mit­ting. State v. Thorpe, 217 Or App 301, 175 P3d 993 (2007)

Lack of diligence by pros­e­cu­­tion is not "good cause" for delaying entry of judg­ment requiring defendant to pay restitu­tion. State v. Biscotti, 219 Or App 296, 182 P3d 269 (2008)

Victim's estate is not per­son within meaning of statute and, therefore, not entitled to restitu­tion. State v. Patton, 237 Or App 46, 238 P3d 439 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant objects to amount of restitu­tion and requests hearing, trial court must accede to defendant's request. State v. Umphery, 241 Or App 36, 248 P3d 449 (2011), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant's failure to request restitu­tion hearing does not preclude appellate court from reviewing restitu­tion award for plain error. State v. Gruver, 247 Or App 8, 268 P3d 760 (2011)

"Full amount of the victim's economic damages" means amount of damages incurred as of date of trial court's determina­tion of restitu­tion and does not include future impair­ment of earning capacity. State v. Jordan, 249 Or App 93, 274 P3d 289 (2012), Sup Ct review denied

This pro­vi­sion does not limit time frame during which trial court may resen­tence defendant as means of remedying viola­tion of victim's constitu­tional rights under Article I, sec­tion 42, of Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Thompson, 257 Or App 336, 306 P3d 731 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant set fire to defendant's restaurant and filed insurance claim, and insurance company hired attorneys to investigate claim, this sec­tion permits insurance company to collect award of attorney fees as economic damages that were reasonably foreseeable. State v. Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Board require­ment that parolee make restitu­tion as condi­tion of parole, (1981) Vol 42, p 117

Notes of Decisions

Type and amount of restitu­tion is limited to that which would be recovered as special damages in civil ac­tion and, where sub­se­quent civil ac­tion is barred, further restitu­tion is barred. State v. Rodriguez, 88 Or App 429, 745 P2d 811 (1987), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Thompson, 138 Or App 247, 908 P2d 329 (1995)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 137—Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 137, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.