2017 ORS 161.675¹
Time and method of payment of fines, restitution and costs

(1) When a defendant, as a part of a sentence or as condition of probation or suspension of sentence, is required to pay a sum of money for any purpose, the court may order payment to be made immediately or within a specified period of time or in specified installments. If a defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, any part of the sentence that requires the payment of a sum of money for any purpose is enforceable during the period of imprisonment if the court expressly finds that the defendant has assets to pay all or part of the amounts ordered.

(2) When a defendant whose sentence requires the payment of a sum of money for any purpose is also sentenced to probation or imposition or execution of sentence is suspended, the court may make payment of the sum of money a condition of probation or suspension of sentence.

(3) When a defendant is sentenced to probation or imposition or execution of sentence is suspended and the court requires as a part of the sentence or as a condition of the probation or suspension of sentence that the defendant pay a sum of money in installments, the court, or the court clerk or parole and probation officer if so ordered by the court, shall establish a schedule of payments to satisfy the obligation. A schedule of payments shall be reviewed by the court upon motion of the defendant at any time, so long as the obligation remains unsatisfied. [1971 c.743 §81; 1977 c.371 §4; 1985 c.46 §1; 1993 c.14 §19; 1995 c.512 §3; 2005 c.264 §16]

Notes of Decisions

Revoca­tion of Proba­tion Can Occur Only If Court Specifically Finds

(1) The defendant has present financial ability to repay costs involved without hardship to himself or family; and (2) his failure to repay is inten­tional, contumacious default. State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116

There is no constitu­tional objec­tion to sen­tence that places defendant on proba­tion on condi­tion that he repay costs. State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116

Where trial court sen­tenced defendant to 3 years’ im­pris­on­­ment following con­vic­­tion for first de­gree forgery and further ordered restitu­tion of victim, which order contained no “specified period of time” or “specified install­ments”, order was not sufficiently specific for defendant to know what was re­quired of him. State v. Calderilla, 34 Or App 1007, 580 P2d 578 (1978)

Where defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of motor vehicle prior to effective date of this sec­tion, trial court, upon revoca­tion of proba­tion, had no authority to impose condi­tion of restitu­tion on any parole he might later receive. State v. Harvey, 35 Or App 719, 582 P2d 476 (1978)

ORS 144.275 (Parole of inmates sentenced to pay compensatory fines or make restitution), empowering Board of Parole to es­tab­lish restitu­tion schedule for parolees, did not relieve trial court of duty to enter order specifying, inter alia, time, place and manner of pay­ment. State v. Ewing, 36 Or App 573, 585 P2d 34 (1978); State v. Secreto, 54 Or App 709, 636 P2d 438 (1981)

Where bail money was deposited with court subject to express condi­tion that it be forfeited for costs and trial court denied mo­tion by third party for its return and referred to it as source for pay­ment of costs, this was sufficient finding of ability to pay costs under this sec­tion. State v. Wise, 40 Or App 303, 594 P2d 1313 (1979)

Where pay­ment of restitu­tion was condi­tion of proba­tion, sen­ten­cing order which specified that amount of restitu­tion was to be “paid at a rate and on a schedule to be determined by proba­tion of­fi­cer” was improper as such a plan must be ordered by the court and not proba­tion of­fi­cer. State v. Randolph, 49 Or App 399, 619 P2d 680 (1980)

Trial court cannot, on remand, impose pay­ment for appellate counsel attorney fees as proba­tion condi­tion. State v. Rowton, 57 Or App 431, 645 P2d 551 (1982)

Trial court properly found defendant had present ability to pay victim assistance assess­ment and cost of appointed counsel. State v. Wetzel, 94 Or App 426, 765 P2d 835 (1988)

Trial courts delega­tion to Board of Parole determina­tion of defendant’s restitu­tion pay­ment schedule was not authorized. State v. Wilcher, 96 Or App 603, 773 P2d 803 (1989)

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

Law Review Cita­tions

11 WLJ 288, 291 (1975); 55 OLR 101 (1976)

Notes of Decisions

Fees of appointed de­fense attorneys and investiga­tion expenses are “costs” which are assessable to defendant as part of sen­tence. State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116

When sen­tence is imposed and defendant has commenced service of that sen­tence, trial court’s jurisdic­tion to supple­ment it by amend­ment is exhausted. State v. Olson, 22 Or App 344, 539 P2d 166 (1975)

As a condi­tion of proba­tion, the defendant may be re­quired to pay for the state’s witness fees but not juror’s fees. State v. Hastings, 24 Or App 123, 544 P2d 590 (1976)

Prevailing party fee cannot be included as part of costs incurred by state and chargeable to convicted crim­i­nal defendant. State v. Marino, 25 Or App 817, 551 P2d 131 (1976)

Due process requires that defendant be afforded notice that costs may be imposed, and be given opportunity to be heard on whether imposi­tion of costs is appropriate. Stacey v. State of Oregon, 30 Or App 1075, 569 P2d 640 (1977)

Expense of transporting defendant to Oregon after waiver of extradi­tion was cost “specially incurred by state in prosecuting defendant” and was properly assessed as part of sen­tence. State v. Armstrong, 44 Or App 219, 605 P2d 736 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Criminal defendant can be re­quired to pay costs incurred by state following filing of felony in­for­ma­­tion against him in district court. State v. Haynes, 61 Or App 43, 655 P2d 621 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Court should consider defendant’s ability to pay and financial resources before imposing obliga­tion to reimburse state for costs of trial. State v. Armstrong, 71 Or App 467, 692 P2d 699 (1984)

If expenses would not be recoverable by Depart­ment of Justice, they are not made recoverable by billing them to an­oth­er agency. State v. Heston, 74 Or App 631, 704 P2d 541 (1985)

Law Review Cita­tions

11 WLJ 284, 288, 289, 291 (1975); 55 OLR 101 (1976)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 433, 476, 489 (1972)

Chapter 161

Notes of Decisions

A juvenile court adjudica­tion of whether or not a child committed acts which would be a crim­i­nal viola­tion if committed by an adult must necessarily include an adjudica­tion of all af­firm­a­tive de­fenses that would be available to an adult being tried for the same crim­i­nal viola­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L.J., 26 Or App 461, 552 P2d 1322 (1976)

Law Review Cita­tions

2 EL 237 (1971); 51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

Chapter 161

Criminal Code


Notes of Decisions

Legislature’s adop­tion of 1971 Criminal Code did not abolish doctrine of transferred intent. State v. Wesley, 254 Or App 697, 295 P3d 1147 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 161—General Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors161.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 161, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano161.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.