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
|
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.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Missouri | Spencer v. Basinger, 562 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Mo. 1978) |
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).
|
After a prima facie showing of indigency has been made, an individual may not be incarcerated for nonpayment of fine and costs |
A prima facie showing of indigency has been made. Under such circumstances petitioner may not be confined further at this time for nonpayment of fine and costs. See Hendrix v. + See moreLark, 482 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. banc 1972). This is not to suggest that those who neglect or refuse to pay a fine may not be incarcerated for their refusal so to do within the constitutional standards described in Hendrix.
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Missouri | Hendrix v. Lark, 482 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Mo. 1972) | Other applicable caselaw | Prisoner's incarceration to satisfy payment of fines and costs levied upon her without giving indigent prisoner option of paying the same by installments denied her the equal protection of law. |
St. Louis must provide indigent defendants an opportunity to pay fines in reasonable installments and that portion of Sec. 773.070 of the Revised Code of the city providing the court + See moreshall not stay the payment of any fine and calling for its execution, i.e., immediate imprisonment in lieu of payment, *429 is unconstitutional under the above decisions.
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Missouri | Davis v. City of Charleston, Mo., 635 F.Supp. 197, 198-199 (1986) | upon raising inference that poverty is reason for non-payment rather than contempt, defendant is entitled to hearing on issue of indigency |
As stated in this Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 28, 1986: It must be remembered that the remedy § 560.031 intends is not an imprisonment for non-payment of fine + See moreas such, but a penalty by contempt of court for the failure to obey—either intentionally or by want of good-faith effort to comply—the sentence of the court.
|
Ability to pay |