State v. Algeo

A crime victim's ability to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for alleged constitutional violations does not extend to alleged statutory violations. Additionally, Article I, section 42(1)(d), does not confer upon a victim the right to receive “restitution” in the full amount of economic damages as that term is defined by ORS 137.106.

Victim petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court. Victim was hit by a drunk driver while "jaywalking" across the street. The trial court determined the victim was entitled to restitution in an amount equal to ten percent of her economic damages. The court determined that the amount was equivalent to what victim would have recovered in a civil action because 90 percent of the damages resulted from her own negligence. To contest the reduced restitution award, victim petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court and argued a constitutional violation of Article I, section 42(1)(d). Victim argued Article I, section 42 incorporates the statutory requirements of ORS 137.106, which require restitution for the “full amount” of economic damages, and that the amount recoverable in a civil action is irrelevant in determining restitution for a crime victim. The Court held that victims of crimes have the ability to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for an alleged constitutional violation, however, this right does not extend to a victims alleged statutory violation. Notwithstanding that holding, the Court considered whether Article I, section 42(1)(d), guarantees crime victims the right to receive the “full amount” of economic damages required under ORS 137.106(1)(a). The Court held that Article I, section 42(1)(d), confers upon a victim the right to receive "prompt restitution", not necessarily the "full amount" of economic damages as that term is defined under ORS 137.106. Affirmed.