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
|
Massachusetts | Com. v. Gomes, 552 N.E.2d 101, 104 (Mass. 1990) |
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 has a right to a hearing to determine willful default and a right to counsel at the hearing. |
The Commonwealth concedes that the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the default. We agree. ….The defendant also maintains that he had the right to be represented by counsel + See moreat the hearing that should have been held on his default. He is correct.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Massachusetts | Com. v. Henry, 55 N.E.3d 943, 949 (Mass. 2016) |
In determining the defendant's ability to pay, the judge must consider the financial resources of the defendant, including income and net assets, and the defendant's financial obligations, including the amount + See morenecessary to meet minimum basic human needs such as food, shelter, and clothing for the defendant and his or her dependents.judge may also consider a defendant's ability to earn based on “the defendant's employment history and financial prospects,” but a judge may attribute potential income to the defendant only after specifically finding that the defendant is earning less than he or she could through reasonable effort. Judge should make determination at close of evidentiary hearing. Defndant has burden of proving inability to pay restitution.
|
“The amount of restitution is not merely the measure of the value of the goods and money *121 stolen from the victim by the defendant; ... the judge must also + See moredecide the amount that the defendant is able to pay and how such payment is to be made.” In practice, this means that, at the close of the evidentiary hearing, the judge must make two findings in deciding whether to order restitution as a condition of probation and, where ordered, the amount of restitution to be paid during the period of probation. First, the judge must determine the amount of the victim's actual economic loss causally connected to the defendant's crime. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proof as to this finding. The order of restitution may not exceed this amount.Second, the judge must determine the amount the defendant is able to pay.Where a defendant claims that he or she is unable to pay the full amount of the victim's economic loss, the defendant bears the burden of proving an inability to pay. Because we have not previously had the opportunity to articulate the legal standard for determining the defendant's ability to pay restitution, we do so here for the first time. In determining the defendant's ability to pay, the judge must consider the financial resources of the defendant, including income and net assets, and the defendant's financial obligations, including the amount necessary to meet minimum basic human needs such as food, shelter, and clothing for the defendant and his or her dependents.judge may also consider a defendant's ability to earn based on “the defendant's employment history and financial prospects,” but a judge may attribute potential income to the defendant only after specifically finding that the defendant is earning less than he or she could through reasonable effort.
|
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.
|