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.
Case Law
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
| State | Citation | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Kentucky | Maynes v. Com., 361 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Ky. 2012) |
Under state constitutional or statutory law, what are the minimum requirements for a constitutionally adequate ability-to-pay determination? Include any guidance about the substantive standards to apply, the burden of proof, + See morethe sources of information that should be considered, and the timing of the determination (i.e. before imposition, before enforcement action, only if incarceration is threatened).
|
The court may consider not only current ability to pay but future ability to pay as well |
Having carefully considered the applicable statutes, we conclude that the trial court was authorized under Kentucky law to impose court costs despite Maynes's status as an indigent defendant entitled to + See morethe services of a public defender. While the directive in KRS 31.110(1) that the court shall waive all costs for such defendants seems mandatory at first blush, a full reading of the 1972 legislation and the current DPA Act belies that conclusion. From its inception through the present, the DPA Act has allowed for imposition of costs against those DPA-represented defendants who can afford to pay. Moreover, a person may qualify as needy under KRS 31.110 because he cannot afford the services of an attorney yet not be poor under KRS 23A.205 as it has existed since 2002 unless he is also unable to pay court costs without depriving himself or his dependents of the necessities of life, including food, shelter or clothing. Finally, the KRS 23A.205 directive to consider not only the defendant's present ability to pay court costs but also his ability in the foreseeable future cannot be overlooked. The trial court's determination here that Maynes would be able to earn enough within the six months following his sentencing to afford the costs required by KRS 23A.205 is not clearly erroneous and, thus, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the portion of Maynes's sentence imposing those costs.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Kentucky | McEntire v. Com., 344 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) | Are there limits to the states ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | Yes, the state court must first hold a nonadversarial hearing to determine an individual's ability to pay a public defender fee before imposing the fee | On remand, the trial court shall hold a nonadversarial hearing to determine whether McEntire has the ability to pay the assessed costs and fees as required by KRS 31.211(1). | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | People v. Jackson, 483 Mich. 271, 769 N.W.2d 630 (2009) |
Under state constitutional or statutory law, what are the minimum requirements for a constitutionally adequate ability-to-pay determination? Include any guidance about the substantive standards to apply, the burden of proof, + See morethe sources of information that should be considered, and the timing of the determination (i.e. before imposition, before enforcement action, only if incarceration is threatened).
|
Defendant is not entitled to an assessment of ability to pay fee for court-appointed attorney until the imposition of the fee is enforced |
Indeed, whenever a trial court attempts to enforce its imposition of a fee for a court-appointed attorney under MCL 769.1k, the defendant must be advised of this enforcement action and + See morebe given an opportunity to contest the enforcement on the basis of his indigency. Thus, trial courts should not entertain defendants' ability-to-pay-based challenges to the imposition of fees until enforcement of that imposition has begun. . . . The operative question for any such evaluation will be whether a defendant **643 is indigent and unable to pay at that time or whether forced payment would work a manifest hardship on the defendant at that time.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | People v. Cunningham, 496 Mich. 145, 147, 852 N.W.2d 118, 120 (2014) | Imposing costs beyond those specified in statute |
The authority to impose criminal costs is statutory. Statute stating that if defendant is guilty, court may impose any cost in addition to the minimum state cost, does not provide + See morecourts with the independent authority to impose any costs upon defendants, and instead, statute provides courts with authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.
|
“The right of the court to impose costs in a criminal case is statutory.” . . . . Thus, courts may impose costs in criminal cases only where such costs + See moreare authorized by statute. In a variety of circumstances, the Legislature has chosen to provide courts with the authority to impose costs. For instance, with regard to certain offenses, courts may require criminal defendants to pay the “costs of prosecution.” . . . we conclude that MCL 769.1k (1)(b)(ii ) does not provide courts with the independent authority to impose “any cost.” Instead, we hold that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii ) provides courts with the authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.
|