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
|
South Carolina | In re Anonymous Former Prob. Judge, 358 S.C. 1, 3 (2004) | Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Any such fees must be deposited into the general fund and cannot be used to directly compensate judges |
The Committee noted that this Court, in In the Matter of Johnson, 302 S.C. 532, 397 S.E.2d 522 (1990), had held that (1) fees collected for services rendered by a + See moreprobate judge in his capacity as probate judge are governed by Article 7 whether specifically enumerated therein or not, and (2) failure to deposit fees in the county fund was a violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to observe high standards of conduct and respect and comply with the law.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | Singletary v. Wilson, 191 S.C. 153, 3 S.E.2d 802, 804 (1939) | Other applicable caselaw | The admonition of constitutional provision, forbidding infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and imposition of excessive fines, is addressed to judiciary, as well as Legislature. |
It necessarily follows that the discretion of the trial Court in its determination of the amount of the penalty, where the maximum amount of the fine is not fixed by + See morethe statute, must be subject to be reviewed on appeal to this Court, if clearly abused, under Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution, which not only forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, but forbids the imposition of excessive fines.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Murray v. State, 855 P.2d 350), (WY 1993) |
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).
|
With respect to imposing a surcharge on a defendant under Section 1-40-119, the court is required to find an ability to pay before ordering an assessment. |
We agree with Appellant that the court was required to find that he had [**28] an ability to pay before ordering the assessment. Murray v. State, 1993 Wyo. LEXIS 110, *27-28, + See more855 P.2d 350, 359 (Wyo. 1993)
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Murray v. State, 855 P.2d 350), (Wyo. 1993) |
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).
|
With respect to imposing restitution under Section 7-9-103(a) and 7-9-102, the court must only make a specific finding when the defendant does not have any ability to pay. |
Henceforth, the court must make a specific finding only when the defendant does not have a present or prospective ability to pay. Although the court is not required to specifically + See morefind that a defendant has the ability to pay, the record must still contain evidence to support the existence of a present or future ability to pay. Murray v. State, 1993 Wyo. LEXIS 110, *26-27, 855 P.2d 350, 359 (Wyo. 1993)
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, 433, (Wyo. 1990) | Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | The court has the authority to require the defendant's payment of his legal fees. |
Under W.S. 7-6-106(d) (June 1987 Repl.) the courts have the authority to order a defendant to repay the state for the cost of defense services.
Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, + See more433, 1990 Wyo. LEXIS 119, *100 (Wyo. 1990)
|
Fines and fees |