147.515
Claims. (1) A
victim who wishes to allege a violation of a right granted to the victim in a
criminal proceeding by Article I, section 42 or 43, of the Oregon Constitution,
shall inform the court within 30 days of the date the victim knew or reasonably
should have known of the facts supporting the allegation. The victim shall
describe the facts supporting the allegation and propose a remedy.
(2) The victim
may inform the court of a claim:
(a) On a form prescribed
by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; or
(b) On the record
in open court and in the presence of the defendant and the prosecuting
attorney.
(3) If the victim
informs the court of a facially valid claim on a form under subsection (2)(a)
of this section, the court shall promptly issue the order to show cause
described in ORS 147.517.
(4) If the victim
informs the court of a facially valid claim orally under subsection (2)(b) of
this section and the court determines:
(a) That each
person entitled to notice of the claim and a reasonable opportunity to be heard
is present, the court shall hold a hearing under ORS 147.530 as soon as
practicable; or
(b) That any
person entitled to notice of the claim and a reasonable opportunity to be heard
is not present, the court shall issue the order to show cause described in ORS
147.517.
(5) If the court
determines that the victim has not alleged a facially valid claim, the court
shall enter a written order dismissing the claim. The order must:
(a) Include the
reasons the claim was dismissed; and
(b) Be without
prejudice to file, within seven days from the date the victim receives the
written order dismissing the claim, a corrected claim for the sole purpose of
correcting the deficiency identified by the court.
(6) If a victim
informs the court of a claim orally and the court does not immediately hear the
matter, the court may require the victim to complete the form described in
subsection (2)(a) of this section. [2009 c.178 §6; 2011 c.659 §3; 2013 c.224 §1]
Note: See note under 147.500.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case:
State v. Thompson
State v. Thompson (2013)
orctapp · cites it 17×
“First, defendant asserts that, under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, the city was required to assert its rights by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus and that the trial court therefore lacked authority to consider the city’s victim’s rights…”
State v. Algeo (2013)
or · cites it 9×
“Petitioner is a crime victim who filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515, alleging that the trial court had violated her right to “receive prompt restitution” under Article I, section 42(1) (d), 1 of the Oregon Constitution.”
State v. Barrett (2011)
or · cites it 6×
“3 When the victim learned that defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, she filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515 for violation of her rights as a crime victim, using the form that is contemplated by that statute.”
State v. Lynch (2020)
orctapp · cites it 7×
“” The parties’ understanding that this was a claim under ORS 147.515 for violation of an Article I, section 42 right is further reinforced by defense counsel’s arguments at trial.”
State v. Sperou (2019)
or
“I, § 42 (1)(a), and to bring claims alleging violations of constitutional rights, ORS 147.515. But that legal status in no way speaks to the relevant question for purposes of the vouching rule, which concerns the factual issue of whether SC was being truthful in claiming to be a…”
State v. Jensen (2021)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“Defendant responded that the victim’s position “puts a completely different light on [defendant’s] statutory argument” under ORS 147.515. The trial court agreed. It observed, “If [the victim is] correct about that, then there’s no issue, is there, it’s not too late? Because they…”
State v. Castillo (2021)
orctapp · cites it 11×
“In response, the state argues that, when it asserts a victim’s right to prompt restitution, the 30-day time limit imposed by ORS 147.515 does not apply. Held: The trial court erred in awarding restitution to T.”
State v. Bray (2012)
or · cites it 6×
“13 Under those statutes, a victim who wishes to vindicate the rights set out in 14 Article I, section 42, may file a claim, ORS 147.515(1), on which the trial court may hold 15 a hearing, ORS 147.”
State v. Ball (2018)
or · cites it 4×
“Appellant, who is a crime victim, filed a claim in the trial court, pursuant to ORS 147.515, alleging that the trial court violated her right to be heard when it sentenced the defendant who had committed crimes against her.”
State v. Bray (2012)
or · cites it 2×
“See ORS 147.515 (setting out process to file claim).”
State v. Wagoner (2013)
orctapp
“The victim had exercised her constitutional right to ‘be present at (and informed in advance of) critical stages of the proceedings,’ but after learning that the defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced without her knowledge, the victim filed a claim — under ORS 147.515 —…”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell (2024)
or
“309 of the defen- dant’s intention to rely upon a defense of insanity, partial responsibility or diminished capacity; “(H) The defendant has filed any notice of an affirmative defense within the last 20 days of the 60-day period; “(I) A claim under ORS 147.515, or a motion under…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.515(1) — 11 cases
State v. Lynch (2020)
orctapp
“” The parties’ understanding that this was a claim under ORS 147.515 for violation of an Article I, section 42 right is further reinforced by defense counsel’s arguments at trial.”
State v. Thompson (2013)
orctapp
“First, defendant asserts that, under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, the city was required to assert its rights by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus and that the trial court therefore lacked authority to consider the city’s victim’s rights…”
State v. Barrett (2011)
or
“3 When the victim learned that defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, she filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515 for violation of her rights as a crime victim, using the form that is contemplated by that statute.”
State v. Castillo (2021)
orctapp
“In response, the state argues that, when it asserts a victim’s right to prompt restitution, the 30-day time limit imposed by ORS 147.515 does not apply. Held: The trial court erred in awarding restitution to T.”
State v. Algeo (2013)
or
“Petitioner is a crime victim who filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515, alleging that the trial court had violated her right to “receive prompt restitution” under Article I, section 42(1) (d), 1 of the Oregon Constitution.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.515(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Barrett (2011)
or
“3 When the victim learned that defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, she filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515 for violation of her rights as a crime victim, using the form that is contemplated by that statute.”
State v. Bray (2012)
or
“13 Under those statutes, a victim who wishes to vindicate the rights set out in 14 Article I, section 42, may file a claim, ORS 147.515(1), on which the trial court may hold 15 a hearing, ORS 147.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.515(3) — 5 cases
State v. Barrett (2011)
or
“3 When the victim learned that defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, she filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515 for violation of her rights as a crime victim, using the form that is contemplated by that statute.”
State v. Lynch (2020)
orctapp
“” The parties’ understanding that this was a claim under ORS 147.515 for violation of an Article I, section 42 right is further reinforced by defense counsel’s arguments at trial.”
State v. Bray (2012)
or
“13 Under those statutes, a victim who wishes to vindicate the rights set out in 14 Article I, section 42, may file a claim, ORS 147.515(1), on which the trial court may hold 15 a hearing, ORS 147.”
State v. Castillo (2021)
orctapp
“In response, the state argues that, when it asserts a victim’s right to prompt restitution, the 30-day time limit imposed by ORS 147.515 does not apply. Held: The trial court erred in awarding restitution to T.”
State v. Ball (2018)
or
“Appellant, who is a crime victim, filed a claim in the trial court, pursuant to ORS 147.515, alleging that the trial court violated her right to be heard when it sentenced the defendant who had committed crimes against her.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.515(5) — 1 case
State v. Algeo (2013)
or
“Petitioner is a crime victim who filed a claim pursuant to ORS 147.515, alleging that the trial court had violated her right to “receive prompt restitution” under Article I, section 42(1) (d), 1 of the Oregon Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.