context: Oregon appellate courts have not previously considered the issue youth now raises -- i.e., whether the award of restitution in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is "civil" or "penal" in nature. In the adult criminal context, though, the Supreme Court has held restitution to be a sentencing device, not a "quasi-civil recovery device."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 299 Or 128, 138-39
citation_a.parenthetical: analyzing whether the same restitution statutes entitled the defendant to a jury trial
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 180, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (analyzing the penal nature of ORS 137.103 to 137.109 (1977)); see also State v. Hart, 299 Or 128, 138-39, 699 P2d 1113 (1985) (analyzing whether the same restitution statutes entitled the defendant to a jury trial).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 292 Or 172, 180
citation_b.parenthetical: analyzing the penal nature of ORS 137.103 to 137.109 (1977
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Dillon, 292 Or 172, 180, 637 P2d 602 (1981) (analyzing the penal nature of ORS 137.103 to 137.109 (1977)); see also State v. Hart, 299 Or 128, 138-39, 699 P2d 1113 (1985) (analyzing whether the same restitution statutes entitled the defendant to a jury trial).