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
|
Colorado |
Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979) People v. Afentul, 773 P.2d 1081, 1085 (Colo. 1989) |
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).
|
Before revocation of probation for failure to make ordered restitution payments can be effected, trial court must find that defendant had the ability to pay at the time the payments + See moreshould have been made.
|
"For purposes of requirement that, before probation may be revoked based upon a finding that probationer did not pay moneys due under condition of probation, probationer must have the present + See moreability to pay, the ability to pay is measured by three factors: that job for which probationer is qualified is available; that job would produce an income adequate to meet his obligations; and that probationer unjustifiably refuses to take it." "Evidence of the defendant's failure to pay restitution constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of the deferred sentencing. When the prosecution presents this prima facie evidence, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was financially unable to make the payments at the time they should have been made" (Afentul, citing Strickland)
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Maine | State v. Davenport, 138 A.3d 1205, 1208 (Me. 2016) |
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's ability to pay must be considered for restitution costs, but defendant has burden of proof on showing inability to pay |
In addition to establishing the offender's burden at sentencing, the Legislature supplied the burden that applies on appeal: On appeal of a restitution order, the offender has the burden of + See moredemonstrating that the incapacity was proven as a matter of law. 17A M.R.S. § 1325(4) (enacted by P.L. 1997, ch. 413, § 3).
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Maine | State v. Lane, 649 A.2d 1112, 1115 (Me. 1994) | Does the states separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Yes. However, Legislative branch may give the judicial branch authority to impose additional fines, fees, and surcharges, which is the case with some Maine statutes. |
All revenue received We have previously upheld mandatory minimum sentences and fines set by the Legislature to be imposed by the judiciary. See State v. Thibeault, 621 A.2d 418, 419 + See more(Me.1993) (mandatory minimum sentencing scheme set forth in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1251 does not impermissibly limit judicial discretion in sentencing); State v. Briggs, 388 A.2d 507, 509 (Me.1978) (mandatory fine provided for night hunting did not violate separation of powers provision in Constitution); State v. Farmer, 324 A.2d 739, 746 (Me.1974) (minimum mandatory sentence does not violate separation of powers mandate). State v. Lane, 649 A.2d 1112, 1115 (Me. 1994)
In the instant case, the Legislature directed that the judiciary add a mandatory 10% surcharge to any fine imposed. We find the judicial imposition of the surcharge was made pursuant to valid legislative authority and, therefore, is not an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Id.
|
Fines and fees |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Maine | State v. Drewry, 946 A.2d 981, 991 (Me. 2008) | Are there limits to the states ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | None besides indigency; court may take from offenders' funds earned while in prison |
The court ordered Drewry to reimburse it in the amount of $2500 toward fees paid to Drewry's court-appointed counsel after finding that Drewry had $4265.42 in his jail account, which + See morefunds were obtained as a result of a settlement of Drewry's claim in the United States District Court against the Cumberland County Jail and Jail personnel for injuries he sustained from having been assaulted by another inmate while awaiting his trial. The trial court has the authority to reconsider a defendant's indigency status at any time during the course of criminal proceedings whenever convincing evidence of non-indigence comes to [the court's] attention. State v. Perry, 486 A.2d 154, 15859 (Me.1985); see also M.R.Crim. P. 44. Drewry's alleged injuries, although sustained while in jail on the present indictment, were not the result of any misconduct on the part the State, the police, the court, or any witnesses. We decline to extend Drewry's invitation to expand our holding in Perry to these circumstances, and determine that the court committed no error in ordering Drewry to reimburse the State for a portion of his court-appointed legal fees.
|
Fines and fees |