Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

14 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

Arizona
State v. Lopez, 175 Ariz. 79, 81, 853 P.2d 1126, 1128 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Far W. Water & Sewer Inc., 224 Ariz. 173, 201, 228 P.3d 909, 937
+ See more
(Ct. App. 2010), as amended (May 4, 2010); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.3
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).
Courts are not required to consider ability to pay when imposing fines. Furthermore, the Arizona Constitution prohibits excessive fines and ability to pay is one factor which can be
+ See more
used to determine whether a fine is excessive. In conducting a criminal contempt proceeding, the defendant must be given notice, time to prepare, and the right to subpoena witnesses.
"Therefore, although we will consider ability to pay as one factor toward a claim that a fine is disproportionate, the trial court does not have to explicitly consider the defendant's
+ See more
ability to pay when imposing a fine or its payment schedule" “Both the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article 2, Section 15 of the Arizona Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive fines. ‘An excessive fine is one that exceeds reasonable, usual, proper, or just punishment’ or ‘one so disproportionate to the offense that it shocks public sentiment and affronts the judgment of reasonable people.’ The ability to pay, however, is only one factor in the determination of whether a fine is excessive, and that factor is not dispositive” "Except as provided by law or by Rule 33.2, a person shall not be found in criminal contempt without a hearing held after notice of the charge. The hearing shall be set so as to allow a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense; the notice shall state the time and place of the hearing, and the essential facts constituting the contempt charged, the notice may be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the person charged, or by an order to show cause. The defendant is entitled to subpoena witnesses on his or her behalf and to release under Rule 7."
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona State v. Phillips, 152 Ariz. 533, 535, 733 P.2d 1116, 1118 (1987) Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? To some degree. Courts can only impose and collect revenue where the legislature provides for such action through statutory law.
"Under either statute, the trial court is required to set the manner of payment of restitution. The trial court thus erred in ordering the probation department to set the manner
+ See more
of payment rather than setting the manner of payment itself."
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona Hughes v. Jorgenson, 203 Ariz. 71, 74, 50 P.3d 821, 824 (2002)
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?
Arizona law recognizes that a conflict of interest might arise where an officer or the court has a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the actions of an agency.
"[T]o violate the conflict of interest statute, a public official must have a non-speculative, non-remote pecuniary or proprietary interest in the decision at issue. The statutes require public officials to
+ See more
disclose potential conflicts and, in most instances, to then refrain from acting on issues on which the conflict exists"
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona State v. Taylor, 216 Ariz. 327, 334, 166 P.3d 118, 125 (Ct. App. 2007) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? Yes. Statutory law only allows the state to recoup fees which the defendnat has a present ability to pay.
"Even if the court's statement that a payment plan can be worked out with the court's judicial assistance unit can be considered as making the order conditional, delegating such authority
+ See more
is not allowed under the rule. Rule 6.7(d) requires the court itself to balance financial resources against substantial hardship at the time the fee is imposed. Thus, based on the purpose of A.R.S. § 11–584(C) and Rule 6.7(d) as explained by the Arizona Supreme Court in Espinoza, the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the statute and rule, and the language used in the opinions quoted above, we hold that a court may only consider the defendant's present financial resources when making a determination pursuant to A.R.S. § 11–584(C) and Rule 6.7(d)."
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona State v. Leyva, 165 Ariz. 269, 798 P.2d 407, 60 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 61, 1990 Ariz. App. LEXIS 165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) Other applicable caselaw Statutory law allows trial courts to consider ability to pay when constructing a payment plan even where it cannot explicitly consider ability to pay when imposing a fee "The trial court retains discretion under this section and § 13-810 to consider the economic circumstances of the defendant in determining the manner of payment" Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647, 649 (Iowa 1987)
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).
A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order, however, has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 2000) Ability to pay must be determined before imposition.
Constitutionally, a court must determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay before entering an order requiring such defendant to pay criminal restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.2. Section 910.2
+ See more
authorizes a court to order the offender to make restitution of court costs and court-appointed attorney's fees “to the extent that the offender is reasonably able to do so.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution?
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant
+ See more
is reasonably able to pay.
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant
+ See more
is reasonably able to pay. . . . Thus, before ordering payment for court-appointed attorney fees and court costs, the court must consider the defendant's ability to pay.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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

+ Create New

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 more
shall 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
as 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Nebraska State v. Holloway, 212 Neb. 426 (1982). The court cannot require that a fine be satisfied by applying jail time served without giving the defendant an opportunity to pay the fine.
It seems clear to us that the statutes cited do not authorize the procedure which the court here used, i.e., requiring the fine to be satisfied by applying the jail
+ See more
time served without giving an opportunity to pay in the manner provided bystatute, and without affording an opportunity to show indigency.
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Nebraska State ex rel. Douglas v. Gradwohl, 194 Neb. 745 (1975) Exemption of certain type or class of offense from the imposition of costs is not an unconstitutional classification.
If it is constitutional for the Legislature to vary penalties according to its judgment of the seriousness of the offense, it may clearly mitigate the burden of costs as well.
+ See more
It may be true that technically costs assessed are not part of the punishment or penalty for an offense. The plaintiff cites cases from other jurisdictions which so hold. However, it does not then necessarily follow that exempting a certain type or class of offense from the imposition of costs constitutes an unconstitutional classification.
Fines and fees