From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Parrott

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 1, 1990
795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

P-087584; CA A63004

Argued and submitted May 30, 1990

Affirmed August 1, 1990

Appeal from District Court, Multnomah County.

Anthony L. Casciato, Judge.

Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He was placed on probation on the condition, inter alia, that he pay $112 as restitution for damage to the automobile with which he collided. He argues that restitution was improper.

Under ORS 137.106 (1), a defendant may be required to pay restitution for pecuniary damages caused by his criminal activities. Defendant does not dispute that there was criminal activity and pecuniary damage. What is missing, he asserts, is the element that defendant's criminal conduct caused the damaging collision or that defendant intended to cause the damage. State v. Stratton, 99 Or. App. 538, 783 P.2d 41 (1989), rev den 309 Or. 522 (1990), is to the contrary.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Parrott

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 1, 1990
795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

State v. Parrott

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE PARROTT, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 1, 1990

Citations

795 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1990)
795 P.2d 1093