State v. O. A. M. A.

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s supplemental judgment awarding State Farm Insurance $12,808.98 in restitution for losses arising from a jewelry theft. The court held that the juvenile court did not plainly err by awarding restitution to State Farm even though the insurer was not specifically identified before adjudication, and it rejected the youth’s timeliness argument under ORS 419C.450(1)(a). The court also held that the youth invited any evidentiary error concerning surveillance video by having counsel play and rely on the video at the restitution hearing.

Holdings

1. The juvenile court did not plainly err by awarding restitution to State Farm because it was not obvious or beyond reasonable dispute that ORS 419C.450(1)(a) required the state to specifically identify the insurer as a victim before or at the time of adjudication.
2. Youth could not obtain reversal based on the juvenile court's reliance on the surveillance video because youth's counsel played the video and affirmatively relied on it to support youth's own restitution argument, thereby inviting any error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the juvenile court plainly erred under ORS 419C.450(1)(a) by awarding restitution to State Farm when the state did not specifically identify State Farm as a victim before or at the time of adjudication.
2. Whether the juvenile court erred by relying on surveillance video that was never formally admitted into evidence to find that youth acted in concert with the other participants and was liable for the full loss.

Disposition

affirmed