Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
Attorney General Opinions
Keyword search across all of the laws in the states. Subject-area tabs above allow you to narrow results. Click the advanced search for further refinement.
Every law can be saved to the Reform Builder
When does this apply
Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.
5 Results
| State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia |
(1) State v. Stamm, 222 W. Va. 276, 278, 664 S.E.2d 161, 163 (2008)
(2) State ex rel. Zirkle v. Fox, 203 W. Va. 668, 669, 510 S.E.2d 502, 503 (1998)
(3) + See moreW. Va. Code Ann. § 61-11A-5
|
Case Law / W.V. Code | Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? |
(1) In criminal failure to meet obligation to minor (W. Va. Code § 61-5-29), the State has the burden of proof and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. (2)However, + See morein civil contempt cases, if contemnor alleges financial inability to pay, he bears the burden of proving such inability to comply with a court mandate in order to avoid imprisonment. (3)Finally, in restitution determinations, the burden is on the defendant and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence.
|
Where a contemnor alleges financial inability to pay in a civil contempt proceeding, he bears the burden of proving such inability to comply with a court mandate in order to + See moreavoid imprisonment.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
West Virginia | (1)State v. Murrell, 201 W.Va. 648, 499 S.E.2d 870 (1997)(2) W. Va. Code §50-3-2. | Case Law | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? |
No. Ability to pay does not have to be considered when imposing fines or fees; certain fines and fees are required by law to be imposed (see, e.g., W. Va. + See moreCode §50-3-2.)
|
“An individual is not excused from the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed under a statute simply because he is indigent, even if that sentence includes the imposition of fines + See morepursuant to statute.”
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
California | 65 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 581 (1982) | "May a penalty assessment be levied against a criminal defendant who does not have a present ability to pay such assessment?" |
Are the same procedural protections that are required in criminal proceedings required in civil collection/contempt proceedings arising from criminal justice debt when those proceedings may result in incarceration? What if + See morethe proceedings may only result in additional fines or non-incarceration penalties?
|
Indigent defendants cannot be imprisoned solely because they cannot pay a penalty. However, when indigent defendants refuse or fail to meet the terms of an alternative option, they can be + See moreimprisoned, as the court sees them the same as a non-indigent defendant.
|
The effect of Antazo was to bar a trial judge from sending a defendant to jail or prison solely because he was unable to pay the monetary penalty. (In re + See moreSiegel (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 843, 846.) However, as Antazo makes clear, such a penalty may nevertheless be imposed upon an indigent in certain circumstances (3 Cal.3d 100, 116):‘[O]ur holding is simply that an indigent who would pay his fine if he could, must be given an option comparable to an offender who is not indigent. When the indigent offender refuses to avail himself of such alternatives at the inception, or defaults or otherwise fails to meet the conditions of the particular alternative which is offered him without a showing of reasonable excuse, the indigent offender becomes in the eyes of the court exactly the same as the contumacious offender who is not indigent. When either of these conditions obtain the offender's indigency ceases to be dispositive and he may, consistently with the mandate of the equal protection clause, be relegated to ‘working out’ his fine by imprisonment.' 65 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 581 (1982).
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Ms. Faye Price, Informal Opinion No. 79-51, 1979 WL 32606, at *1 (Feb. 15, 1979) | Informal Opinion No. 79-51, | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigence standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the states constitution? |
Possibly. Ability to pay should be consistently applied in reference to statute that requires parents and guardians to pay for the cost and maintenance of State Training School residents. Therefore, + See moreit is possible that determining ability to pay when assessing criminal justice debt presents same constitutional issues.
|
there could be constitutional difficulties arise from the manner in which it is applied if great care is not taken to insure that the determination of financial responsibility is made + See moreon a strictly consistent and rational basis.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | Ronald W. Thompson, Informal Opinion No. 77-150, 1978 WL 25972, at *1 (Feb. 7, 1978) | Informal Opinion No. 77-150 | see above | see above |
There is no requirement in the statute that there be a judicial determination of indigence, and it does not appear that a county could properly limit its payments to persons + See morewho have been judicially determined indigent.
|
Ability to pay |