OREGON CRIME VICTIMS LAW CENTER
  • DONATE
  • ABOUT
    • WHAT WE DO
    • STAFF AND BOARD
  • GET INVOLVED
    • DONATE
    • JOIN OUR TEAM
    • HARDY MYERS DINNER
    • CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION
    • STAY INFORMED
    • REQUEST A TRAINING
    • CLE - Access to Justice Representing Victims Who Speak Out
    • CLE - Access to Justice for Children
    • CLE - Access to Justice for Undocumented Crime Victims
  • GET HELP
    • LEGAL REPRESENTATION
    • CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS
    • RESOURCES
  • PRESS
    • IN THE NEWS
    • NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT US
  • ESCAPE THIS SITE
  • Blog
  • Executive Director
Crime Victims’ Rights After Passage of SB 233 


Overview
  •  Post-Constitutional Amendment & SB 233:  Oregon is in a Compliance & Enforcement Scenario
  • Oregon Compared to the National Landscape – The Language and What Courts are Saying
  • Breakdown of SB 233

Compliance & Enforcement

    •    Compliance is when state personnel fulfill legal responsibilities; efforts to reduce willful or inadvertent failure to fulfill                 those duties by making systemic changes are “compliance efforts.”
        – Tools & remedies are best practices, training & education, and administrative complaint systems.
        –  Last piece has not yet been finalized BUT Oregon DOJ is working to establish process. 
   •   Enforcement is a victim’s ability to seek a judicial order that governmental personnel comply with victims’ rights laws or that         provides a remedy for a violation of those laws.
        – Tools & remedies are motion practice (by victim or prosecutor) that seeks 1 of 2 remedies:  “stop” or “do over”

Changes Made to Move to Enforcement

   •  §§ 42(3)(d), 43(5)(d)
        – Suspension is permitted unless it would violate Defendant’s constitutional rights. 
   •  §§ 42(3)(a), 43(5)(a)
        – “Every victim … shall have remedy by due course of law for violation of a right established in this section.”
   •  §§ 42(3)(b), 43(5)(b)
        – “A victim may assert a claim for a right established in this section in a pending case, by a mandamus proceeding if no case             is pending or as otherwise provided by law.”

SB 233

   •   What it does:
        – Establishes a set of procedures for claims
        – Provides court with information to allow it to make decision whether to proceed without victim 
   •   What it does NOT do:
        – Create any additional rights
        –  Change any existing rights

Beginning of any plea or sentencing


Section 5
   •     DDA shall inform the court whether v is present
   •     If D is charged with violent felony.
            –  If V requests, prosecutor shall make reasonable efforts to consult before final plea
            –  Before court accepts plea:
  •    If v is present court SHALL ask whether v agrees or disagrees and wants to be heard
  •    If v is not present, court SHALL ask whether v requested to be notified and consulted, and if so, whether agrees or                            disagrees
  •    If court finds that v requested and no reasonable efforts, court MAY NOT accept plea without findings

2.    Oregon Victims’ Constitutional Rights & Comparison to National Landscape

(What do enforceable rights “look” like)

 Right to be Present
   •     The Language:
            –   In Oregon:  “The right to be present at . . . any critical stage of the proceedings held in open court when the defendant                  will be present.” Or. Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(a).
            –  Federal:  “The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and                 convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other                         testimony at that proceeding” 18 U.S.C. § 3771
   •      Case Examples:
            –   State v. Williams, 960 A.2d 805 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2008) (rejecting D’s argument that allowing V to remain in courtroom after                  testifying and thereafter be recalled to make an in-court voice identification violated his constitutional rights; court                          noted that D has no constitutional right to exclude witnesses, yet victim has a state constitutional right to be present).
            –   U.S. v. Edwards, 526 F.3d 747 (11th Cir. 2008) (criminal D has no constitutional right to exclude witnesses from the                              courtroom).

Right be Informed / Notice
    •      The Language:
            –  Oregon:  “The right . . . , upon specific request, to be informed in advance of any critical stage of the proceedings held in                 open court when the defendant will be present.” Or. Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(a).
            –   Federal:  “The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding                  involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused”  18 U.S.C. § 3771.
   •       Case Examples:
            –  Edens v. Oregon Bd. of Parole Marion County, Case Nos. 07C22594, 07C22595 (granting v’s petition for writ of mandamus                 asking that board be directed to vacate order reducing term after finding violations of victim’s rights, including of the                     30-day notice requirement which resulted in failure to afford the victim “adequate opportunity to prepare for the                             hearing and to obtain counsel,” and by limiting time to be heard, which “has a chilling effect on the full exercise of the                     victim’s rights”).
            –   Clatsop County Case:  D, who while intoxicated broke V’s door, was charged with Criminal Mischief II, disorderly conduct,                  and resisting arrest.  Unbeknownst to victim he was cited into municipal court where judge allowed a plea to resisting                      arrest and dismissed the criminal mischief charge.  V filed for restitution and notice violation. Before decided; D paid in                  full. 

Right be Heard

    •      The Language:
            –  Oregon:  “The right . . . to be heard at the pretrial release hearing and the sentencing or juvenile court delinquency                         disposition.” Or. Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(a).
            –  Federal:  “The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea,                                 sentencing, or any parole proceeding.”  18 U.S.C. § 3771
   •      Case Examples:
            –  Kenna v. District Court, 435 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.  2006) (finding victim had indefeasible right to be heard akin to defendant’s                 right to allocution).
            –  Columbia County:  18 year old former high school wrestler facing a Measure 11 mandatory min. for injuring 17-year-old                 student from another school.  First trial was a hung jury; set for retrial.  D sought permission to move to CA pending                         trial.  V feared D would not return for trial but prosecutor was not opposed because D had no prior failures to                                 appear.  Victim independently opposed and D’s request was denied.
            –  State v. Guzek, 86 P.3d 1106 (Ore. 2004) (finding victims had right guaranteed under Oregon’s constitution to provide                         victim impact statement). 

Right to Restitution

   •       The Language:
            –   In Oregon:   “The right to receive prompt restitution from the convicted criminal who caused the victim’s loss or injury.”                 Or. Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(d).
            –   Federal: “The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law”  18 U.S.C. § 3771

   •       Case Examples:
            –   United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “lost income” under MVRA includes future lost                          income).
            –   In re Isiah F, 2005 WL 3047954 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2005) (upholding award of restitution for one year weekly                                 psychotherapy sessions; self defense training; purchase of a guard dog; train ticket for victim’s mother to attend                             proceedings; psychotherapy sessions for victim’s parents; and payment for parent’s missed work).
            –   In Oregon:
                    •   V moved to adjust restitution payment schedule from $25 to $200/month. Question was presented of whose                                 burden it is to plead inability to pay.  Some judges are seeing SB 233 as putting this on V.
                    •   D ordered to pay restitution to murder victim’s mother and others.  While D was incarcerated mother and CVSD                         paid other payees in full to avoid collections. County gave credit to D for these payments and closed cases.  Had                             to move to remedy - issue of substitution of payees.

Right to Confer/Be Consulted

   •      The Language:
            –  In Oregon:  “The right to be consulted, upon request, regarding plea negotiations involving any violent felony.” Or.                             Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(f).
            –   Federal: “The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771
   •      Case Examples:
            – State v. Acker, 27 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) (finding prosecutor could  confer with and consider the victim’s opinions in                deciding whether to prosecute so long as the prosecutor did not determine whether to extend a plea offer to the                            defendant based solely on the victim’s wishes)
            –  U.S. v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006) (refusing to dismiss charge on government’s motion because no                         evidence that right to confer had been afforded).
 
Right to Protection

   •      The Language:
            –  In Oregon:
                •  “The right to be reasonably protected from the criminal defendant or the convicted criminal throughout the                                     criminal justice process and from the alleged youth offender or youth offender throughout the juvenile                                             delinquency proceeding..” Or. Const. art. I, § 42 (1)(a)
                •  “The right to have decisions by the court regarding the pretrial release of a criminal defendant based upon the                                 principle of reasonable protection of the victim . . .” Or. Const. art. I, § 43 (1)(b).
            –  Federal: “The Right to be reasonably protected from the accused.”  18 U.S.C. § 3771.
            –  Routinely used nationwide to argue conditions of release

3.    General Breakdown of SB233
   • Section 1:  Definitions
           – Authorized prosecuting attorney
           – Critical stage proceedings
                    • Excludes arraignments
           – Reasonable efforts to inform

  • Section 2:  victim standing (victim, prosecutor, victim’s attorney)
  • Section 3: Bulk of prosecutor’s duties
           – Critical stage proceedings (not arraignment)
           – Victims not in charging document
           – Did victim ask prosecutor to assert and enforce
           – Inform judge if victim present
  • Section 4:  schedule a hearing to  reconsider release decision
           – This covers arraignments
           – Discretionary
   •Section 5: plea and sentencing
           – Victim is present
           – Violent felonies (consult)
                • Victim must know right to consult
   • Section 6:  Assertion of claims and Court’s duties
           – File within 7 days
           – Orally or form
           – Facially valid notice to everyone
   • Section 7: Court and Prosecutor
           –  Notice
           –  Ct issues Order to show cause
                    • Victim/def/pros may contest claim
           – Pros good cause to suspend where minor victim or gang
   • Section 9: Deadlines for challenging rights impact trial
           – Victim or prosecutor assert within 35 days arraignment
           –  Defendant object to victim presence within 35 days of arraignment
   • Section 10:  Suspension of proceedings
           – Only proceedings directly impacted by the right
           –  Ct shall consider several criteria whether to reschedule.
           –  Pretrial release only 14 days
           –  Trial
   • Section 11:  Court to issue order
   • Section 12: Waiver of remedy
   • Section 14: Interlocutory appeal with Supreme Ct



Adapted from a presentation by the National Crime Victim Law Institute
.

​OCVLC provides free legal representation to crime victims to help them assert their rights within a criminal case.

We provide this service to all Oregon counties, to all victims of crime.

Contact Us


Oregon Crime Victims Law Center
No walk-in services available. Call or email for intake.


Office hours:
OCVLC will be closed Thursday, June 19th 2025
​for Juneteenth

Monday-Friday
9AM-5PM PST
Closed most Federal holidays

Call or email for intake:
503-208-8160
​[email protected] ​
​ 
Oregon Crime Victims Law Center
7412 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy., 
Suite 209 
Portland, OR  97225

Stay in Touch 

    Join our Mailing List 

SUBSCRIBE
  • DONATE
  • ABOUT
    • WHAT WE DO
    • STAFF AND BOARD
  • GET INVOLVED
    • DONATE
    • JOIN OUR TEAM
    • HARDY MYERS DINNER
    • CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION
    • STAY INFORMED
    • REQUEST A TRAINING
    • CLE - Access to Justice Representing Victims Who Speak Out
    • CLE - Access to Justice for Children
    • CLE - Access to Justice for Undocumented Crime Victims
  • GET HELP
    • LEGAL REPRESENTATION
    • CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS
    • RESOURCES
  • PRESS
    • IN THE NEWS
    • NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT US
  • ESCAPE THIS SITE
  • Blog
  • Executive Director