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
|
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 | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 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).
|
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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moreauthorizes 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 | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moreis 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 moreis 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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 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).
|
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 moreused 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 moreability 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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moreis 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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wisconsin | State v. Ramel, 743 N.W.2d 502, 510 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). |
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).
|
None. Case law instructs courts to look to the guidelines listed in the American Bar Association's Standards on Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures. |
The court "require[s] that the court, by reference to the relevant facts and factors, explain how the sentence's component parts promote the sentencing objectives. By stating this linkage on the + See morerecord, courts will produce sentences that can be more easily reviewed for a proper exercise of discretion." Id. at 507.
In further reliance on its earlier holding in Pedersen, the Will court noted:
In Pedersen, we set out the following procedure to be followed in cases where the defendant claims he is unable to pay a fine: (1) We encouraged trial courts to follow a practice of ascertaining the defendant's ability to pay a fine at the time of sentencing. At this time the court should determine an amount and payment schedule in keeping with the defendant's means. (2) If, thereafter, the defendant is unable to pay the fine imposed, he has the burden to apply to the court for relief.
Will, 84 Wis.2d at 40304, 267 N.W.2d 357."
"Kuechler was remanded to the trial court because the defendant's ability to pay the fine imposed *671 had not been determined, although he raised the issue in his post conviction motion, id., ¶ 13, and the court characterized as unsatisfactory the evidence in the record of inability to pay, id., ¶ 14. On remand, the trial court was reminded of the supreme court's instructions in Pedersen and Iglesias, which instructions relied upon the American Bar Association Standards on Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures:
(c) In determining whether to impose a fine and its amount, the court should consider:
(i) the financial resources of the defendant and the burden that payment of a fine will impose, with due regard to his other obligations;
(ii) the ability of the defendant to pay a fine on an installment basis or on other conditions to be fixed by the court;
(iii) the extent to which payment of a fine will interfere with the ability of the defendant to make any ordered restitution or reparation to the victim of the crime; and
(iv) whether there are particular reasons which make a fine appropriate as a deterrent to the offense involved or appropriate as a corrective measure for the defendant."
State v. Ramel, 743 N.W.2d 502, 510
|
Ability to pay |