Background
A juvenile identified as J. J. M. admitted to committing second-degree criminal mischief by intentionally damaging his mother’s television. In the judgment of jurisdiction, the juvenile court noted that the youth stipulated there was a basis for restitution, and scheduled a separate hearing to determine the amount. At the restitution hearing, youth’s counsel challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the amount owed — raising concerns about the age of the television — but did not argue that the court lacked legal authority to impose restitution at all.
The juvenile court ordered youth to pay restitution, and youth appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order on preservation grounds. On appeal, youth argued for the first time that the juvenile court lacked authority to impose restitution because his mother could not have recovered damages from him in a civil action. His theory rested on ORS 30.765, which makes parents liable for intentional torts committed by their minor children. Youth reasoned that because his mother would herself be liable for his conduct, she suffered no objectively verifiable monetary loss within the meaning of ORS 31.705(2)(a), and therefore restitution was legally improper.
The court declined to reach that argument because it was never raised below. Youth had in fact stipulated that restitution was appropriate and contested only the amount — a posture the court noted could alternatively be characterized as invited error under State v. Kammeyer. Because youth also failed to request plain-error review on appeal, the court exercised its discretion to decline plain-error consideration under ORAP 5.45(7).
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile who stipulates to the propriety of restitution at the trial level cannot later challenge the court’s legal authority to impose restitution on appeal — the argument is unpreserved.
- Oregon appellate courts will not exercise their discretion to review unpreserved claims as plain error absent an explicit request and supporting plain-error argument, per ORAP 5.45(7).
- The stipulation to restitution could also be analyzed as invited error, separately barring appellate relief under State v. Kammeyer.
Why It Matters
This nonprecedential decision is a straightforward application of Oregon’s preservation doctrine in the juvenile context, underscoring that counsel must raise all legal objections — not merely factual or evidentiary ones — at the trial level to preserve them for appeal. Defense attorneys handling juvenile restitution matters should be alert to the interplay between parental liability statutes like ORS 30.765 and the restitution framework, and must explicitly challenge the court’s legal authority to impose restitution if that is the intended argument.
The opinion also serves as a reminder that stipulations made in juvenile court carry real appellate consequences: agreeing to the appropriateness of restitution while contesting only its amount forecloses a later argument that no restitution was legally permissible at all.