Civil Remedy for Crime Victim

Below is an interesting holding coming out of Wyoming. It raises several interesting issues. The first that the prosecutor apparently saw fit to waive civil remedy for the victim of crime. Unfortunately, this is not the issue that was clarified. Ultimately, the issue that was appealed clarified the doctrine of absolute immunity, which protects speech during the course of a legal proceeding from allegations of slander or libel.

____________

Summary provided in whole by NCVLI:

Abromats v. Wood, Nos. S-08-0195, S-09-0196, 2009 WL 2517175 (Wyo. Aug. 19, 2009).

Defendant, charged with various crimes related to a traffic accident, attempted in the course of plea negotiations to condition payment of restitution on the accident victim’s release of civil liability. After the prosecutor agreed to this condition, Crisis and Referral Emergency Services (C.A.R.E.S), a victims’ services organization, informed the victims that defendant was taking action in the criminal case to impede their rights in future civil litigation. The victims then submitted an impact statement to the prosecutor through C.A.R.E.S., in which they clarified that they had not agreed to release defendant from civil liability. Defendant and her husband subsequently sued the victims, arguing that two statements in the victim impact statement were libelous. The victims moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Defendant and her husband, as plaintiffs in the civil action, appealed the grant of summary judgment. The victims cross-appealed, requesting that the court (1) uphold the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) find that (a) neither of the statements were libel per se, and (b) their statements were protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity, as witnesses in a judicial proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, and agreed with the victims that the doctrine of absolute immunity applied. Specifically, the court held that a crime victim’s statement to a victims’ services provider for submission to the court, which is not published to anyone else for any other purpose, cannot support a claim for libel because such a victim has absolute immunity when making statements as a witness in a judicial proceeding. In reaching this decision, the court stated: “The victim of a crime is an integral part of many criminal investigations and we can think of few participants in the judicial process more in need of protection. In addition, a court is required to seek information about restitution to victims under Wyoming law and the court and the prosecutor are required to communicate with the victim about that and other matters. . . . It is vital that victims feel free to speak openly during that process.”

From The Oregonian: What Every Parent Should Know About Wills

This article by Amy Wang in The Oregonian reminds parents about the importance of preparing a will. Parents should consider whether to set up a trust for children to provide for educational, medical, or other expenses. Wills also allow parents to determine who will be the guardian of their children if both parents pass away. Other estate planning tools, such as an advance directive form, allow parents to state whether they want to be placed on life support or receive tube feeding. Planning ahead relieves stress and family disagreement in the event a parent becomes incapacitated. Finally, parents should update a will after the birth of additional children or when their family status has changed.

Read “What Every Parent Should Know About Wills” by Amy Wang.

Oregon Court of Appeals Rules on Spousal Support and VA Payments

Husband and Wife were married for 35 years. Wife was a stay-at-home mom to the parties’ five children and did not work outside of the home during the marriage. Husband retired from the Army with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which became worse over a period of 11 years until Husband was determined to be 100% disabled. Wife filed for divorce and requested spousal support. The trial court determined that only Husband’s non-disability income should be used to calculate spousal support. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had erred in failing to consider Husband’s VA benefits. Oregon law defines income for purposes of support payments to include “any program or contract to provide substitute wages during times of unemployment or disability." ORS 25.010(7)(f). The Court modified the trial court’s award to award Wife indefinite spousal support of $1,400 per month.


Read Morales v. Morales.