State v. White

“A person is not a ‘victim’ within the meaning of that provision unless the person (1) is the one against whom the defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result.” State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 442 P3d 1092 (2019).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal mistreatment and one count of third-degree assault of her eight-year-old son, a supplemental judgment imposing restitution, and a compensatory fine for the resulting medical evaluation for those injuries obtained. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s assignment of Providence Oregon Option (Providence) as a “victim,” under ORS 137.103(4)(d), making the insurance carrier statutorially authorized to collect restitution and a compensatory fine. On appeal, Defendant challenges the imposition of the award to Providence under ORS 137.103(4)(d).  “A person is not a ‘victim’ within the meaning of that provision unless the person (1) is the one against whom the defendant committed the crime and (2) incurred economic damages as a result.” State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 365 Or 175, 442 P3d 1092 (2019). The Court held that the medical expenses incurred were not damages suffered by the child, but as an unemancipated minor, by the parents. Therefore, because the son did not qualify as a “victim” under ORS 137.103(4)(a), the medical provider expending money on his behalf is not a victim either. Conviction affirmed; Supplemental judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing.