Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Gutierrez-Medina

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 16, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JORGE GUTIERREZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted March 28, 2016

         Marion County Circuit Court 13C44943; Donald D. Abar, Judge.

          Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the infuence of intoxicants and third-degree assault. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to take into account the victim's comparative fault for the accident when it ordered defendant to pay restitution for the victim's medical expenses.

         Held:

         The civil-law concept of comparative fault does not apply to the award of criminal restitution under ORS 137.106.

         Affirmed.

         [287 Or. 241] ARMSTRONG, P. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and third-degree assault. As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $154, 827.63 for medical treatment that the assault victim had received for the victim's injuries. On appeal, defendant challenges the restitution order, arguing that the trial court erred when it refused to reduce the restitution amount based on the comparative fault of the victim. We conclude that the statutory comparative-fault scheme does not apply to the criminal restitution statute, ORS 137.106. Accordingly, we affirm.

         The background facts are few and undisputed. Defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants at night when he struck a pedestrian-the victim-who had entered the roadway in an area that was dark and not marked for pedestrian crossing. Defendant pleaded guilty to DUII and third-degree assault. As part of his plea, defendant admitted that he "recklessly caused serious physical injury to [the victim] by means of a motor vehicle, a dangerous weapon, while [he] drove on a public road under the influence of intoxicants."

         The state sought restitution from defendant in the amount of $179, 827.63 for the victim's medical bills, which included $31 for the Department of Human Services, and $179, 796.63 for the victim's health insurer. At the restitution hearing, defendant objected to the requested restitution amount on two bases. First, defendant argued that the trial court should apply the civil-law concept of comparative fault and order defendant to pay only that amount of damages that represented his percentage of fault for the victim's injuries. To support that argument, defendant presented testimony from Webb, an expert in forensic accident investigation. Webb testified about his analysis of the accident and concluded that, based on the circumstances, a sober driver would not have been able to avoid the collision with the victim, and the victim was in the best position to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.