State v. M. A. S.

Under ORS 419C.450, “adjudication” and “disposition” are distinct phases of delinquency proceedings and adjudication hearings are to determine jurisdiction, thus, presenting restitution evidence at a dispositional hearing is too late.

Youth appealed the juvenile court’s findings that Youth was within the court’s jurisdiction and a restitution award. On appeal, Youth asserted that the court: (1) failed to make written findings on it’s reasoning to order the petition amended under ORS 419C.261(1); (2) that amending on the morning of the jurisdictional hearing violated due process; and (3) presentation of restitution evidence was untimely because it was after adjudication, failing ORS 419C.450. In response, the State argued that Youth failed to preserve the amended petition arguments and presentation of restitution evidence is timely until the court entered the jurisdiction judgment. The Court found that Youth did not request written findings or object to a lack thereof. Further, the Court found that Youth asked the court not to postpone the hearing to remedy late notice of the amendment, and therefore, rejected the Youth’s due process argument. Under ORS 419C.450, the Court found “adjudication” and “disposition” were distinct phases of delinquency proceedings and adjudication hearings were to determine jurisdiction. Thus, the Court held that adjudication is completed at the end of adjudicatory hearings and presenting restitution evidence at a dispositional hearing is too late. Restitution award reversed; remanded for new dispositional judgment; otherwise affirmed.