Legal Opinion

State v. Kirschner

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 2016No. CC F19697; CA A154602; SC S063069PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalters, J.

Defendant challenges the imposition of restitution, under ORS 137.106, 1 for wages that the victim lost when the victim was subpoenaed to testify at defendant’s criminal trial and restitution hearing. In a per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution award, citing State v. Ramos, 267 Or App 164, 340 P3d 703 (2014). State v. Kirschner, 268 Or App 716, 342 P3d 1026 (2015). We allowed review of both Ramos and the present case, and we now affirm the decision of Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute. Defendant and his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. RamosOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. RamosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. HerfurthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. State v. FoxOregon Supreme Court · 2022
  3. State v. ManwillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. NicholsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  5. State v. KirschnerOregon Supreme Court · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API