Background
K. B., a youth in a delinquency proceeding, appealed a juvenile court judgment finding him within the court’s jurisdiction and ordering restitution. The state requested $429.99 for a broken iPhone but did not present evidence establishing the loss or supporting the amount claimed.
K. B. objected because of the lack of evidence. The juvenile court nevertheless awarded restitution and gave him 90 days to challenge it.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the restitution award could not stand. Under ORS 419C.450(1)(a), the state must present evidence of the nature and amount of a victim’s injury, loss, or damage before or at adjudication. The state conceded that it had failed to satisfy that requirement, and the court accepted the concession.
Because the state presented no evidence of either the nature or amount of the damages at the required time, restitution could not be imposed later. The court reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment omitting restitution, while otherwise affirming the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A restitution request is not itself sufficient evidence of a victim’s loss or the amount of damages.
- In an Oregon juvenile delinquency case, the state must present restitution evidence before or at adjudication.
- A juvenile court cannot cure the state’s failure of proof by imposing restitution and allowing the youth to challenge it afterward.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces both the evidentiary and timing requirements for restitution in Oregon juvenile proceedings. Prosecutors must substantiate claimed losses at the adjudication stage, and juvenile courts may not shift the burden to the youth through a post-award challenge process.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.