Background
A youth was charged by delinquency petition in Washington County with first-degree theft after he and others stole jewelry from a kiosk at Washington Square Mall. Both the original and amended petitions named the kiosk owner as the victim. At his adjudication hearing, the youth admitted to the theft and the juvenile court accepted his admission and proceeded immediately to disposition. At that point, a juvenile counselor reported the stolen property was valued at over $13,000, and a victim’s advocate noted the kiosk owner had filed an insurance claim still pending with State Farm. The district attorney represented that the youth had stipulated to legal liability and to the presentation of restitution evidence at disposition or a future hearing.
At the restitution hearing held approximately two months after adjudication, the state sought $1,000 for the kiosk owner (her deductible) and $12,808.98 for State Farm (the insurer’s payout). The kiosk owner testified that the total loss was $13,808.98 and that State Farm had covered all but her $1,000 deductible. On cross-examination, youth’s counsel played surveillance footage of the theft—footage that was never formally admitted into evidence—to argue that the youth was only responsible for one display of bracelets worth $1,470. The juvenile court rejected that argument, found the youth had acted in concert with the other participants in a coordinated theft, and ordered him to pay the full $12,808.98 to State Farm. This appeal followed.
Youth raised two assignments of error: (1) that the state’s identification of State Farm as a victim for the first time at the restitution hearing was untimely under ORS 419C.450(1)(a), which requires restitution evidence to be presented prior to or at the time of adjudication; and (2) that the juvenile court’s factual finding that he acted “in concert” was unsupported because the surveillance video was never formally admitted into evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on both assignments. On the timeliness issue, the court applied plain-error review because the youth had not preserved the objection below. The court declined to find plain error, concluding it was neither obvious nor beyond reasonable dispute that ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires the state to specifically identify a subrogated insurer as a victim prior to adjudication. The court distinguished its prior decisions in State v. M. A. S., 302 Or App 687 (2020), and State v. L. G. S.-S., 307 Or App 208 (2020), noting that in those cases the state had presented no restitution evidence at all before adjudication. Here, the state had identified the kiosk owner as a victim, disclosed the total loss exceeded $13,000, and noted an insurance claim was pending—all before the restitution hearing. The youth had also broadly stipulated to presenting restitution evidence at a later date, a stipulation the court found did not plainly exclude the later identification of the insurer.
On the second assignment, the court held the invited-error doctrine barred relief. Youth’s counsel had deliberately played the unadmitted surveillance video during cross-examination and expressly relied on it in closing argument to urge the court to limit restitution to the bracelet display. Having strategically introduced and argued from the video, youth could not later complain that the juvenile court relied on the same video to reach the opposite factual conclusion. The court noted the youth did not dispute that the video’s contents could support the court’s “in concert” finding, nor did he challenge the legal sufficiency of that finding to support full restitution—his only argument was the procedural one about admission, which was foreclosed by invited error.
The court also flagged, without resolving, the open question of whether a state can satisfy ORS 419C.450(1)(a)’s requirement to present evidence of “injury, loss or damage” without identifying the specific victim by name—noting the statute’s text does not expressly require it, and that neither party had developed a full statutory-construction argument suitable for resolution on plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- Under ORS 419C.450(1)(a), the state must present restitution evidence prior to or at the time of adjudication, but it is not plainly obvious that the statute requires the state to identify a subrogated insurer by name at that stage—leaving the question open for a preserved, fully briefed appeal.
- A youth who broadly stipulates to presenting restitution evidence at a later hearing may be found to have waived objection to the post-adjudication identification of an insurer as a restitution recipient, even if the stipulation did not explicitly mention the insurer.
- The invited-error doctrine bars a youth from challenging a factual finding based on evidence—here, unadmitted surveillance footage—that defense counsel deliberately introduced and affirmatively relied upon at the hearing.
- A juvenile adjudicated for theft may be held liable for the full loss caused by a coordinated group theft if the court finds he acted in concert with the other participants, even if he was not present for every moment of the theft.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for juvenile defense practitioners and prosecutors in Oregon because it confirms that a youth’s broad pre-hearing stipulation to deferred restitution evidence can undercut a later plain-error challenge to the identification of an insurance subrogee as a restitution recipient. At the same time, the court’s explicit reservation of the statutory construction question signals that a defendant who preserves a timely objection—and fully briefs whether ORS 419C.450(1)(a) requires victim identification before adjudication—may still find traction in a future appeal.
The invited-error ruling also serves as a practical warning: defense strategies that introduce unadmitted evidence to limit a client’s exposure create a substantial risk that the court will use that same evidence against the client, with no appellate remedy available. Counsel must weigh the tactical value of relying on evidence against the risk of forfeiting any challenge to the court’s use of it.