|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. John Lee McLaughlin|
|Supreme Court Courtroom 1|
|Mark D. Brown on behalf of petitioner on review|
Paul L. Smith on behalf of respondent on review
|consolidated for argument; S060112 (Control)|
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. John Lee McLaughlin, (S060112) (Control) (S060160) (A142664) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 243 Or App 214, 258 P3d 1241, former disposition withdrawn on recons, 244 Or App 691, 260 P3d 814, opinion on recons withdrawn and original opinion and disposition adh'd to on further recons, 247 Or App 334, 269 P3d 104 (2011)).|
Issues in (S060112):
When the Court of Appeals affirms a defendant's conviction and sentence but vacates a supplemental judgment imposing restitution on the grounds that the trial court lacked authority to impose restitution, is the proper disposition to vacate the supplemental judgment?
Issues in (S060160):
If the prosecution fails to comply with ORS 137.106(1) for the imposition of restitution -- which requires that the district attorney investigate and present to the court, prior to the time of sentencing, evidence of the nature and amount of the victim's economic damages -- and the case is remanded for resentencing, does the trial court retain authority to impose restitution?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: