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.
4 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
|
Indiana | 2010 Ind. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 1 (May 12, 2010) | Re: Civil Forfeitures and the Common School Fund | Other applicable opinions | Civil forfeitures are not committed to the common school funds like criminal fines and fees under the state constitution |
It is our opinion that Article 8, § 2 of the state constitution does not apply to forfeiture actions brought under Ind. Code ch. 34-24-1. Article 8 of the Indiana + See moreConstitution provides for the funding of the common school fund, part of which is derived “from the fines assessed for breaches of the penal laws of the State; and from all forfeitures which may accrue.” Art. 8, § 2. A proceeding under Indiana's forfeiture law is civil in nature, and it is only fines and forfeitures from criminal proceedings that must be paid into the common school fund.
|
Revenue flow |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wisconsin | 1995 WL 264119 (Wis.A.G.) | Forfeitures | What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? | Unclear with regard to fines and fees, but uniformity regarding the recovery of forfeitures. |
Section 799.01 provides in part:
(b) Forfeitures. Actions to recover forfeitures except as a different procedure is prescribed in chs. 23, 66, 345 and 778, or elsewhere, and such different procedures + See moreshall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.
|
Revenue flow |