Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Or. App. 123

544 P.2d 590

State v. Hastings

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 19, 1976

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1976-01-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“irrespective of specific violations of law.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 157 Or. App. 415 - State v. Ferman-Velasco, 48 Or. App. 157 - State v. Washburn

“"* * * "(2) Costs shall be limited to expenses specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant. They cannot include expenses inherent in providing a constitutionally guaranteed jury trial or expenditures in connection with the maintenance and operation of government agencies that must be made by the public irrespective of specific violations of law."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 48 Or. App. 157 - State v. Washburn, 51 Wash. App. 192 - State v. Earls

Applies OR 161 § 161.665 · OR 164 § 164.135

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-01-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2007

10 state decisions

401976198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*125 SCHWAB, C. J.

¶1 Upon trial by jury defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, ORS 164.135. The circuit court placed defendant on probation and as one of the conditions of probation, directed defendant to pay Washington County $378, $345 of this amount representing jurors’ fees paid by the county and $33 representing state’s witness fees. The only issue on appeal is whether the sentencing court had authority to order this payment.

¶2 The court in its discretion may require a convicted defendant to pay costs, ORS 161.665(1). ORS 161.665(2) specifically excludes the expenses of a jury trial as a cost which defendant may be required to pay. 1 As the state concedes, the portion of the circuit court’s order covering jurors’ fees cannot stand. State v. Leathers, 271 Or 236, 531 P2d 901 (1975).

¶3 The remaining $33 was the type of expense "specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant,” ORS 161.665(2), and is therefore properly assessable to defendant. This cost was incurred so the state could prove the indictment against the defendant in this particular case. Payment of witness fees in a particular case is not an expenditure made "irrespective of specific violations of law.” ORS 161.665(2). See, State v. Fuller, 12 Or App 152, 157-58, 504 P2d 1393 (1973), aff’d 417 US 40, 94 S Ct 2116, 40 L Ed 2d 462 (1974) .

¶4 Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

1

¶5 "Costs shall be limited to expenses specially incurred by the state in prosecuting the defendant. They cannot include expenses inherent in providing a constitutionally guaranteed jury trial or expenditures in connection with the maintenance and operation of government agencies that must be made by the public irrespective of specific violations of law.” ORS 161.665(2).

/24/orapp/123 · .json · Public domain