State v. Tuma

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Lefthandbull

    306 Or. 330 (Or. 1988)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding the defendant’s conviction for attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, but not award of restitution

    The prosecutor or the court should have placed on record any evidence relied on to show that acts of defendant caused harm to the house, so that defendant might have the opportunity to contest the causation issue. Cf. State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 637 P.2d 614 (1981) (resentencing required where evidence is lacking on an element of restitution). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing after such further hearing as the court deems necessary.

  2. State v. Dillon

    292 Or. 172 (Or. 1981)   Cited 92 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying that analysis to an award of restitution under ORS 137.103 and 137.106

    TANZER, J. In this case, State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or. 184, 637 P.2d 609 (1981), and State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 637 P.2d 614 (1981) (decided this date), we examine the nature and scope of restitution as authorized for criminal sentences by ORS 137.103 to 137.109. Each case presents different aspects of restitution. THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

  3. State v. Eastman

    292 Or. 184 (Or. 1981)   Cited 23 times
    In Eastman, two defendants were convicted of failure to stop at the scene and were ordered to pay restitution for the other drivers' medical expenses and repair bills.

    The issue presented by these two consolidated cases is whether a defendant convicted of leaving the scene of an accident without performing statutory duties may be sentenced to pay restitution for damages resulting from the accident. We granted the state's petition for review in this case, along with petitions in State v. Dillon, 292 Or. 172, 637 P.2d 602 (1981) and State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 637 P.2d 614 (1981), in order to clarify the circumstances in which a sentence of restitution is authorized. Defendant Eastman's car collided with a motorcycle at an intersection.

  4. State v. Lindsly

    808 P.2d 727 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming a restitution award requiring the defendant to pay a telephone company for investigation expenses it incurred after the defendant fraudulently gained access to the company's computer network

    Although the damages incurred by the victim here are significantly greater than in Louden, the same principle governs. The victim suffered more than an "inconvenience," see State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 196, 637 P.2d 614 (1981), or a temporary restriction on its work activities. See State v. Heath, supra n 2.

  5. State v. Hazlitt

    77 Or. App. 344 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    Remanding restitution award where it was undisputed that the defendant was convicted of theft based on the sale of a diamond, and where the record failed to establish that a portion of the restitution award was causally linked to the loss of the diamond

    Under ORS 137.106(1), a defendant's potential liability for restitution is limited to pecuniary damages resulting from his criminal activities. State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 637 P.2d 614 (1981); State v. Eastman/Kovach, 292 Or. 184, 637 P.2d 609 (1981); State v. Dillon, 292 Or. 172, 637 P.2d 602 (1981); State v. Sellers, 76 Or. App. 552, 709 P.2d 768 (1985). Defendant does not argue that the insurer was not a "victim" or that the losses it suffered were not "pecuniary damages."

  6. State v. Heath

    75 Or. App. 425 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 7 times
    In Heath, we had held that the labor costs were not directly attributable to the defendants' criminal conduct, because the costs were based on lost truck and supervisory time.

    The average cost of supervisory time committed to the protest action does not constitute an actual expense incurred as a result of defendants' protest actions either. If a victim suffers inconvenience, but no financial loss attributable to the crime, then no pecuniary damage exists. State v. Tuma, 292 Or. 194, 196, 637 P.2d 614 (1981). Willamette Industries would have had to pay its supervisors the same average hourly rate whether they had dealt with the protest or not. It experienced the inconvenience of not having its supervisors available for other work while dealing with the protest, with the consequent diversion of paid-for effort, but the inconvenience does not amount to pecuniary damage.