State v. N. R. L.

Despite recent amendments to ORS 419C.450, restitution continues to function as an element of the penal system. Therefore, it does not require a jury trial that would be afforded by Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution.

The youth appealed the juvenile court’s denial of youth’s motion to empanel a jury on the issue of restitution, which followed from its judgment that youth pay restitution of $114,071.13 for the damage youth did to a warehouse property. Youth challenged that Article I, section 17 of the Oregon Constitution afforded youth the right to a jury trial because recent changes to ORS 419C.450 changed the penal nature of the statute to a quasi-civil one. The Court analyzed the purpose of restitution and distinguished it from a civil judgment because it is meant to compensate only for economic damages and not all damages that the victim endured. Further, the Court found that restitution had other penological characteristics oriented toward rehabilitative and deterrent purposes, not specifically for a single victim’s recovery as in a civil judgment. Thus, Article I, section 17 right to a jury trial does not apply. Affirmed.