From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Daniel

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 13, 1991
820 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

89-09-4706-C; CA A64415

Argued and submitted September 27, 1991.

Conviction affirmed; restitution order vacated; Remanded for resentencing November 13, 1991

Appeal from District Court, Malheur County, F.J. Yraguen, Judge pro tempore.

Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Conviction affirmed; restitution order vacated; remanded for resentencing.


Defendant appeals the imposition of restitution of $355.70 after his conviction for endangering the welfare of a minor. ORS 163.575. We vacate the order of restitution and remand for resentencing.

ORS 163.575 provides, in relevant part:

"(1) A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor if the person knowingly:

"(a) Induces, causes or permits an unmarried person under 18 years of age to witness an act of sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse as defined by ORS 167.060."

Defendant does not assign as error the trial court's failure to grant his demurrer on the ground that ORS 163.575 is overbroad and vague on its face and as applied.

After a bench trial, the court found that defendant and a woman had engaged in sexual conduct in the presence of the woman's 11-month old child. The court ordered defendant to pay $355.70 as restitution to Holy Rosary Medical Center for its expenses in examining the woman after her sexual contact with defendant.

Defendant argues that Holy Rosary could not recover restitution. The state concedes that point, and we accept the concession.

The state also concedes that it could not recover the expense as a cost of prosecution, because defendant had not been charged with a crime before the hospital incurred the expense. ORS 161.665; State v. Haynes, 53 Or. App. 850, 854, 633 P.2d 38, rev den 292 Or. 108 (1981).

Conviction affirmed; restitution order vacated; remanded for resentencing.


Summaries of

State v. Daniel

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 13, 1991
820 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

State v. Daniel

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERTO R. DANIEL, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 13, 1991

Citations

820 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)
820 P.2d 901

Citing Cases

State v. White

Under these circumstances, where the state sought restitution for CARES but provided no explanation for why…

State v. Flajole

In other cases, we have determined that the authority is rather limited and does not extend, as the state has…