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. Andrews

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 5, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSHUA BRANDON ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted December 21, 2017

          Malheur County Circuit Court 15CR1533; Patricia A. Sullivan, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

         Affirmed.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals an amended general judgment of conviction for harassment, ORS 166.065, assigning error to the trial court's imposition of restitution. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution where it was unclear, based on the jury's verdict, what specific conduct established the conviction for harassment. Specifically, defendant argues that the uncertainty defeats the causal nexus between defendant's conduct and the victim's damages. Held: The trial court did not err. In imposing restitution, the court was not limited to consideration of the evidence presented at trial and there was ample evidence in the record that defendant struck the victim in the face and caused the victim to suffer damages.

          [295 Or.App. 195] GARRETT, J.

         Defendant appeals an amended general judgment of conviction for harassment, ORS 166.065.[1] We reject without discussion defendant's first assignment of error and write to address his second assignment, which challenges the trial court's award of restitution. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

         When reviewing a trial court's award of restitution, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, State v. Kirkland, 268 Or.App. 420, 421, 342 P.3d 163 (2015), and review a trial court's legal conclusions for errors of law, State v. Jordan, 249 Or.App. 93, 96, 274 P.3d 289, rev den, 353 Or. 103 (2012). We state the facts in accordance with that standard.

         Defendant was charged with harassment and fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, following an altercation that occurred between defendant and the victim after the victim prevailed in an unrelated civil action against defendant. Following a hearing in that proceeding, the victim returned to work at a car wash that he owned and operated. A short time later, defendant arrived at the car wash and began verbally accosting the victim and making rude gestures at him. At trial, the victim testified that, when he approached defendant's car, defendant spat on him and struck him on the side of his face. The victim further testified that the contact caused his tooth bridge, a device that held one of his teeth in place, to fall out and become damaged.

         During closing argument, the state argued that the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment could be established by defendant spitting on the victim, punching the victim, or both. The jury found defendant guilty of harassment but not guilty of assault. The verdict did not specify what conduct formed the basis of the jury's conviction for harassment.

         At the restitution hearing, the victim again described defendant's punching him in the face, and the [295 Or.App. 196] state presented documentary evidence from the victim's dentist that the cost of repairing the tooth bridge was $2, 280. Defendant objected to the state's request for restitution, arguing that the court could not impose restitution because the jury had not concurred on the specific conduct that established the "offensive physical contact" element of harassment. Additionally, defendant pointed to the fact that he had been found guilty of harassment, which does not require physical injury, and not guilty of assault, which does require physical injury. From that, defendant reasoned that the jury might have convicted him based solely on spitting, which could not have caused the victim's damages. The trial court rejected defendant's arguments and found:

"[I]n this case it's entirely possible the jury acquitted on the Assault 4 because they didn't find physical injury in this case because of the lack of pain and the fact that what was damaged was this bridge, ...

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.