- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 04-05-2017
- Case #: A160356
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, P.J. for the Court; Shorr, J.; & Linder, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for harassment, and a supplemental order for restitution to the victim (ORS 137.106). On appeal, defendant challenged the court’s imposition of restitution. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in ordering restitution because the victim’s injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s criminal conduct as required by State v Ramos, 358 Or 581, 368 P3d 446 (2016). The state agreed with Defendant’s reading of Ramos, but argued the trial did not determine whether the victim’s injury was reasonable foreseeable because Ramos had not yet been decided. “Error, in general, must be determined by the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of the trial.” State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136, 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003). The Court of Appeals found the trial court in error when it declined to make the requisite factual finding even though the court was not required to by then-current case law. In light of Ramos, the Court agreed with the State that the appropriate disposition was to remand the case back to the trial court. Supplemental judgment vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.