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

New Jersey State v. Bolvito, 86 A.3d 131, 139
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).
Less about protections for ability-to-pay determination, the case law has considered courts to broadly consider ability to pay
When it assesses a defendant's ability to pay, the sentencing court should look beyond the defendant's current assets and anticipated income during the period of incarceration. The Legislature did not
+ See more
impose time constraints on an SCVTF penalty. N.J.S.A. 2C:14–10. If unpaid, the penalty does not evaporate at the conclusion of the defendant's custodial sentence or his or her period of parole supervision. To the extent that a defendant's educational background and employment history may affect his or her potential to achieve post-incarceration employment and a steady income, such factors may be relevant to the inquiry. For purposes of the sentencing court's determination, a defendant's ability to pay should not be measured only by current circumstances, but assessed over the long term
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New Jersey Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 148, (NJ 2006) abrogated by Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? an indigent facing loss of motor vehicle privileges or a substantial fine in municipal court is entitled to counsel
In addition, without referencing our State Constitution, we held in Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt that “as a matter of simple justice, no indigent defendant should be subjected to a conviction entailing
+ See more
imprisonment in fact or other consequence of magnitude without first having had due and fair opportunity to have counsel assigned without cost.” 58 N.J. 281, 295, 277 A.2d 216 (1971); see also R. 7:3–2(b) (“If the court is satisfied that the defendant is indigent and that the defendant faces a consequence of magnitude ..., the court shall assign the municipal public defender to represent the defendant.”). In Rodriguez, we considered “the substantial loss of driving privileges” as one type of “serious consequence” that would warrant assigning counsel to an indigent defendant. 58 N.J. at 295, 277 A.2d 216. We acknowledged “[t]he importance of counsel in an accusatorial system,” underscoring that in a case with “any complexities[,] the untrained defendant is in no position to defend himself,” and that in a case without “complexities, his lack of legal representation may place him at a disadvantage.” ...We can find no principled reason why an indigent facing loss of motor vehicle privileges or a substantial fine in municipal court, termination of parental rights in family court, or tier classification in a Megan's Law proceeding would be entitled to counsel under state law but an indigent facing jail for allegedly willfully refusing to pay a child support judgment would not. Moreover, the indigent subject to incarceration for failure to pay support can hardly be distinguished from the indigent conferred with the right to counsel in an involuntary civil commitment hearing. We are persuaded that the due process guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution compels the assignment of counsel to indigent parents who are at risk of incarceration at child support enforcement hearings.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New Jersey State v. De Bonis, 58 N.J. 182, 190 (1971) Other applicable caselaw defendants are allowed to pay fines in installments
As we have said, there has been no bar to installment payments. The matter has rested in the court's discretion. The question now before us is whether the Federal Constitution
+ See more
requires an opportunity to pay a fine in installments. 
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Rusk v. State, 440 S.W.3d 694, 702 (Tex. App. 2013)
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).
Court must inquire into defendant's ability to pay before revoking probation and the burden of proof is on the state to show by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant
+ See more
willfully refused to pay financial obligation.
"The Texas ability-to-pay statute imposes an evidentiary burden on the State while Bearden imposes a mandatory judicial directive to inquire into a defendant's ability to pay." Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), reh'g denied (Sept. 16, 2015),, cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1188, 194 L. Ed. 2d 202 (2016) Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? Court imposition of costs is not unconstitutional under federal or state constitutional law as long as the money collected will go toward a "criminal justice purpose"
"[T]he statute under which court costs are assessed (or an interconnected statute) provides for an allocation of such court costs to be expended for legitimate criminal justice purposes, then the
+ See more
statute allows for a constitutional application that will not render the courts tax gatherers in violation of the separation of powers clause. A criminal justice purpose is one that relates to the administration of our criminal justice system. Whether a criminal justice purpose is “legitimate” is a question to be answered on a statute-by-statute/case-by-case basis."
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Acosta v. State, 233 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
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?
There is no case law addressing this question; however, Texas courts have stated that a conflict of interest exists if counsel is required to make a choice between advancing his
+ See more
client's interest in a fair trial or advancing other interests. By analogy, then, a conflict of interest may also exist when law enforcement and/or courts are required to to make a choice between advancing justice and fair adjudication or advancing other interests (perhaps their own).
"An actual conflict of interest exists if counsel is required to make a choice between advancing his client's interest in a fair trial or advancing other interests (perhaps counsel's own)
+ See more
to the detriment of his client's interest.”
Revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Texas Gross v. State, 279 S.W.3d 791, 793–94 (Tex. App. 2007) abrogated for other reasons by Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? No, so long, as the defendant has the ability to off-set the State's expenses
"nonindigent defendant is required to pay for counsel. To require an indigent to reimburse the county, to the extent he is able, for the expense of furnished counsel tends to
+ See more
put indigents and nonindigents on the same basis and is consistent with due process. The State of Texas provides an important service in providing legal services to those indigent citizens who cannot afford to pay for their own defense. Because of this service provided to indigents, the State has a significant interest in assuring that persons with financial resources pay for their own representation and do not take a free ride at the expense of its taxpayers. Thus, it is not an inherent violation of due process for the State to take reasonable steps to collect on expenditures made on behalf of those who have the ability to off-set the State's expenses."
Fines and fees