State v. Dillon ( 1981 )

JOSEPH, C. J.,

dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Eastman, 51 Or App 723, 626 P2d 956 (1981). In this case, as in that case, a defendant who patently was the cause of all the expenses which were incurred because of "the facts or events constituting” his crimes is given the benefit of the results of an extraordinarily rigorous analysis,¹ which substantially ignores the policy of the statute, as well as its words.

THORNTON, J. and WARREN, J. join in this dissent.

1 Perhaps not so extraordinary. "Comparable only to the Supreme Court’s analysis in State v. Stalheim” would be the better phrase — but that would not be entirely fair to the majority here, for in this case the majority deals with the statute judicially. The majority opinion in Stalheim, on the other hand, consists in the main of nothing but legislative policy ideas disguised as legal reasoning.