Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

7 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

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 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).
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 more
be 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
courts 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 more
are 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.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina State v. Hunter, 315 N.C. 371, 376 (1986)
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).
State law requires that NC courts "take into consideration the resources of the defendant, her ability to earn, her obligation to support dependents, and such other matters as shall pertain
+ See more
to her ability to make restitution or reparation" when ordering restitution.
We do not interpret N.C.G.S. § 15A–1343 to require the trial judge to find and enter facts when imposing a judgment of probation. Rather it requires the court to take
+ See more
into consideration the resources of the defendant, her ability to earn, her obligation to support dependents, and such other matters as shall pertain to her ability to make restitution or reparation. This record clearly shows that these matters were considered by Judge Allsbrook in his judgment ordering restitution. He knew defendant's age, her relationship to the victim, that she resided with her mother, that she was indigent for legal purposes, and that the victim's family had insurance of an uncertain amount in scope at the time of the sentencing hearing. The court's action in remitting the original fine and delegating the determination and scheduling of payments in restitution to the probation officer evidenced the trial judge's full recognition of the matters to be considered pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A–1343(d).
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina Matter of Alamance Cty. Court Facilities, 329 N.C. 84, 99 (1991) Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? Not explicitly, but it may be limited on a case-by-case basis
We hold that when inaction by those exercising legislative authority threatens fiscally to undermine the integrity of the judiciary, a court may invoke its inherent power to do what is
+ See more
reasonably necessary for “the orderly and efficient exercise of the administration of justice.” Beard v. N.C. State Bar, 320 N.C. at 129, 357 S.E.2d at 696. Article V prohibits the judiciary from taking public monies without statutory authorization. But our statutes obligate counties and cities to provide physical facilities for the judicial system operating within their boundaries. N.C.G.S. § 7A–300(a)(11) (1989); N.C.G.S. § 7A–302 (1989). These facilities must be adequate to serve the functioning of the judiciary within the borders of those political subdivisions. Such adequacy necessarily includes safeguarding the constitutional rights of parties and ascertaining that parties' statutory rights—such as handicap access—are similarly protected. Although the statutes do not expressly pass the duty of providing adequate judicial facilities to the court in case of default of local authorities, the court has the inherent authority to direct local authorities to perform that duty.
Revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina Pers. v. Miller, 854 F.2d 656, 662–63 (4th Cir. 1988)
Under state constitutional or statutory law, under what circumstances will the imposition or enforcement of fees or fines create conflicts of interest for courts, police departments, probation departments, or other
+ See more
law enforcement agencies?
Private counsel for interested parties may co-prosecute cases with government counsel when such participation "(1) has been approved by government counsel; (2) consists solely of rendering assistance in a subordinate
+ See more
role to government counsel; and (3) does not rise in practice to the level of effective control of the prosecution."
The issue here is whether and, if so, to what extent, private counsel for interested parties may be authorized to participate with government counsel in such a prosecution. Young flatly
+ See more
proscribes turning the prosecution completely over to private counsel for interested parties, but it certainly did not proscribe all participation by such counsel. . . . The limits of such allowable assistance were also suggested: assistance may not extend to the point that “counsel for the private party [is] ... in control of the prosecution.” Id.8 We therefore read Young at least implicitly to approve (or certainly not to forbid) the practice of allowing private counsel for interested parties to participate formally with government counsel in the prosecution of contempt citations so long as that participation (1) has been approved by government counsel; (2) consists solely of rendering assistance in a subordinate role to government counsel; and (3) does not rise in practice to the level of effective control of the prosecution. As indicated, we find authority for this rule of limited participation at least implicit in Young and we think it wholly conformable to Young 's underlying principles. Accordingly, we adopt it as the appropriate rule governing the participation of private counsel for interested parties in contempt prosecutions.
Transparency
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina State v. Webb, 358 N.C. 92, 101–02 (2004) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? Yes, a defendant may only be held liable for counsel fees in criminal trials if the defendant is convicted.
A convicted defendant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a valid judgment for costs can be entered. State v. Crews, 284 N.C. 427, 201 S.E.2d
+ See more
840 (1974). Costs are imposed only at sentencing, so any convicted indigent defendant is given notice of the *102 appointment fee at the sentencing hearing and is also given an opportunity to be heard and object to the imposition of this cost. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of notice and an opportunity to be heard are satisfied. Accordingly, the imposition of the appointment fee on convicted indigent defendants passes federal constitutional muster.
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina Shore v. Edmisten, 290 N.C. 628, 633–34 (1976) Other applicable case law Though a defendant may not be held liable for the fees of court appointed counsel after a conviction, he may be held liable for restitution for high costs.
A state or a local agency can be the recipient of restitution where the offense charged results in particular damages or loss to it over and above its normal
+ See more
operating costs. It would be reasonable, for example, to require a defendant to pay the state for expenses incurred to provide him with court appointed counsel should he ever become financially able to pay. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). It would not however be reasonable to require the defendant to pay the state's overhead attributable to the normal costs of prosecuting him. People v. Baker, 37 Cal.App.3d 117, 112 Cal.Rptr. 137 (1974); State v. Mulvaney, 61 N.J. 202, 293 A.2d 668 (1972); Cf. People v. Teasdale, 335 Mich. 1, 55 N.W.2d 149 (1952).
Fines and fees