Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

4 Results

Export results to Excel

State Citation Question Brief answer Language from the opinion When does the case apply?
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
the 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 more
the 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Kentucky McEntire v. Com., 344 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) Are there limits to the state’s 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington DC Smith v. Smith, 427 A.2d 928, 932 (D.C. 1981)
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 more
the 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).
Courts must hold indigence hearing before determining failure to pay was willful (and punishing); Defendant bears burden of showing inability to pay; Court must consider earnings as well as capacity in
+ See more
current job market given educational background and work experience
"When faced with a motion for contempt establishing noncompliance with a support order, the defendant bears the burden of showing an inability to pay or some other excuse for failure
+ See more
to comply. ... Ability to pay, of course, “is not merely a function of actual earnings but is to be derived, more broadly, from earning capacity in the current job market, given one's educational background and work experience.” ... Because appellant's motion to reduce support gave the trial court sufficient notice that he might be unable to meet his obligations under the stay of the contempt commitment, the trial court was obliged to hold a hearing and make a finding of ability to pay before revoking the stay.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Washington DC Lee v. Habib, 424 F.2d 891, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1970) Other applicable case law As in criminal cases, courts must consider ability to pay in civil cases
The equal protection clause applies to both civil and criminal cases; the Constitution protects life, liberty and property. It is the importance of the right to the individual, not the
+ See more
technical distinction between civil and criminal, which should be of importance to a court in deciding what procedures are constitutionally required in each case.44 Often a poor litigant will have more at stake in a civil case than in a criminal case.... We hold today only that the United States must pay for transcripts for indigent litigants allowed to appeal in forma pauperis to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals if the trial judge or a judge of the DCCA certifies that the appeal raises a substantial question the resolution of which requires a transcript. We do not hold that every civil case will require a transcript on appeal.59 We indicate no opinion as to whether one will be necessary in this case.
Ability to pay