No Oregon Restitution for Victim Losses Before Date of Crime
No Oregon Restitution for Victim Losses Before Date of Crime
On September 10, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant could not be assessed restitution for losses occurring before the crime he was convicted of.
Donte Muhammad and his wife were separately indicted on Oregon health care fraud charges. Muhammad was charged with criminal conduct alleged to have occurred between November 1, 2009 and July 15, 2012. His wife was charged with crimes occurring between August 2007 and July 2012.
Both Muhammad and his wife eventually pleaded guilty to various crimes and the State sought full restitution from both of them.
At a restitution hearing, the prosecution presented evidence that Muhammad and his wife engaged in criminal activities between August 2007 and July 2012, which caused economic damages totaling $229,886.63.
Muhammad “argued that he should not be required to pay restitution for the entire five-year period,” in part, because “the state had not charged him with criminal activities that occurred before” November 1, 2009. The prosecution argued that Muhammad lived with his wife “the entire time and benefited from this lifestyle. He ate with her, he went shopping with her, he lived in the same home with her, he bought electronics with her for his kids. They benefited from this amount as a married couple.”
The trial court agreed and imposed restitution totaling $229,886.63, jointly and severally, on Muhammad and his wife.
The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that the State conceded that under State v. Dorsey, 259 Ore. App. 441, 314 P.3d 331 (2013), it is error “for a trial court to impose restitution based on activities that occurred outside the period of time covered by the defendant’s plea agreement.”
“Defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to criminal activities that began in November 2009, but the restitution award included economic damages that were incurred as early as 2007,” the court recognized. “The fact that defendant may have benefited from his wife’s earlier criminal activities, as the trial court found, does not alter the reach of the restitution statutes. It was error for the trial court to impose restitution jointly and severally on defendant for criminal activities that occurred before the dates covered by his plea agreement.” See: State v. Muhammad, 265 Ore. App. 412 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Related legal case
State v. Muhammad
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 265 Ore. App. 412 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |