Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 19, 1993No. 91-930-CR, 91-931-CR, 91-932-CR; CA A72283, A72284, A72285PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

The state petitions for review of our opinion, 116 Or App 558, 842 P2d 805 (1992), which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15(1). We allow the petition and adhere to our opinion.

The state challenges our holding that vacated compensatory fines to the three rape victims of defendant’s crimes. It argues that we incorrectly interpreted the compensatory fine statute, ORS 137.101,1 in concluding that only a victim who has suffered “pecuniary damages” is entitled to a compensatory fine. Under the state’s interpretation, although there was no evidence that established pecuniary loss…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. BarkleyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. PartainOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Brock v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  3. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. SierraOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API