Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

16 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

South Carolina In re Anonymous Former Prob. Judge, 358 S.C. 1, 3 (2004) Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? Any such fees must be deposited into the general fund and cannot be used to directly compensate judges
The Committee noted that this Court, in In the Matter of Johnson, 302 S.C. 532, 397 S.E.2d 522 (1990), had held that (1) fees collected for services rendered by a
+ See more
probate judge in his capacity as probate judge are governed by Article 7 whether specifically enumerated therein or not, and (2) failure to deposit fees in the county fund was a violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to observe high standards of conduct and respect and comply with the law.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

South Carolina Singletary v. Wilson, 191 S.C. 153, 3 S.E.2d 802, 804 (1939) Other applicable caselaw The admonition of constitutional provision, forbidding infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and imposition of excessive fines, is addressed to judiciary, as well as Legislature.
It necessarily follows that the discretion of the trial Court in its determination of the amount of the penalty, where the maximum amount of the fine is not fixed by
+ See more
the statute, must be subject to be reviewed on appeal to this Court, if clearly abused, under Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution, which not only forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, but forbids the imposition of excessive fines.
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

West Virginia State v. Murrell, 201 W. Va. 648, 649–50, 499 S.E.2d 870, 871–72 (1997).
Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Haught, 179 W.Va. 557, 371 S.E.2d 54 (1988).
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).
(1) While there is no prohibition against the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law, indigent defendants may not be incarcerated solely because of their inability to pay court-ordered
+ See more
fines or costs. (2) The court may impose of a statutory fine without determination of ability to pay, but before a trial court conditions its recommendation for a defendant's parole upon the defendant's payment of statutory fines, costs and attorney's fees, the trial court must consider the financial resources of the defendant, the defendant's ability to pay and the nature of the burden that the payment of such costs will impose upon the defendant.
"An individual is not excused from the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed under a statute simply because he is indigent, even if that sentence includes the imposition of fines
+ See more
pursuant to statute. Consistent with the principles of Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), and *650 **872 Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), however, while there is no prohibition against the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law, indigent defendants may not be incarcerated solely because of their inability to pay court-ordered fines or costs." State v. Murrell, 201 W. Va. 648, 649–50, 499 S.E.2d 870, 871–72 (1997).
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

West Virginia W. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 3 Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? No. West Virginia's Constitution allows the Court of Appeals to impose binding state-wide rules.
“The court shall have power to promulgate rules for all cases and proceedings, civil and criminal, for all of the courts of the State relating to writs, warrants, process, practice
+ See more
and procedure, which shall have the force and effect of law.”
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

West Virginia See generally §59-1-1 to §59-1-39. W. Va. Code §59-1-14.
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?
The Court, Clerk of Court, Sheriff and Probation Dept can collect fines. Most fines and fees go into the general revenue fund (either state or county), but the West
+ See more
Virginia Deputy Sheriff Retirement Fundt fund receives a small amount from certain collections (see §59-1-14).
Revenue flow
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

West Virginia W. Va. Code § 29-21-16 Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution?
No, not under the state constitution. However, state statutory law provides that "court shall not order a person to pay costs unless the person is able to pay without
+ See more
undue hardship."
(g) In the circumstances and manner set forth below, circuit judges may order repayment to the state, through the office of the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over
+ See more
the proceedings, of the costs of representation provided under this article:(1) In every case in which services are provided to an indigent person and an adverse judgment has been rendered against such person, the court may require that person, and in juvenile cases, may require the juvenile's parents or custodian, to pay as costs the compensation of appointed counsel, the expenses of the defense and such other fees and costs as authorized by statute. (2) The court shall not order a person to pay costs unless the person is able to pay without undue hardship. In determining the amount and method of repayment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the person, the person's ability to pay and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose. The fact that the court initially determines, at the time of a case's conclusion, that it is not proper to order the repayment of costs does not preclude the court from subsequently ordering repayment should the person's financial circumstances change. (3) When a person is ordered to repay costs, the court may order payment to be made forthwith or within a specified period of time or in specified installments. If a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, an order for repayment of costs is not enforceable during the period of imprisonment unless the court expressly finds, at the time of sentencing, that the person has sufficient assets to pay the amounts ordered to be paid or finds there is a reasonable likelihood the person will acquire the necessary assets in the foreseeable future. (4) A person who has been ordered to repay costs, and who is not in contumacious default in the payment thereof, may at any time petition the sentencing court for modification of the repayment order. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that continued payment of the amount ordered will impose undue hardship on the person or the person's dependents, the court may modify the method or amount of payment. (5) When a person ordered to pay costs is also placed on probation or imposition or execution of sentence is suspended, the court may make the repayment of costs a condition of probation or suspension of sentence.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

West Virginia State v. Stamm, 222 W. Va. 276, 281, 664 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2008) Other applicable case law In criminal failure to pay support cases, burden of reasonable ability to pay remains with the state.
"Accordingly, we now hold that, insofar as W. Va. Code § 61-5-29(3) (1999) (Repl. Vol. 2005) shifts to a defendant the burden of disproving a material element of the State's
+ See more
case [here, defendant's reasonable ability to provide was an element in 61-5-29(2), but reasonable ability to provide was also an affirmative defense in 61-5-29(3)], in violation of the due process clauses found in Article III, Section 10, of the Constitution of West Virginia, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that individual provision, severed from the remainder of W. Va. Code § 61-5-29, is unconstitutional and unenforceable."