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
|
Arkansas |
Bohannon v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 434; Arkansas Code §5-4-205; Drain v. State, 10 Ark. App. 338, 664 S.W.2d 484 (1984); Cavin v. State, 11 Ark. App. 294, 669 S.W.2d + See more508 (1984); Trial Handbook for Arkansas Lawyers § 99:20 (2016-2017 ed.)
|
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).
|
The defendant has to make a good faith attempt to comply with a court order to pay. Otherwise, her probation may be revoked. The State has the burden of proving + See morethe failure to pay; the burden of production then shifts to the defendant to show why. The State must then prove that the nonpayment was inexcusable.
|
"(3) In determining whether to revoke probation or conditional release, the court or releasing authority shall consider: (A) The defendant's employment status; (B) The defendant's earning ability; (C) The defendant's financial + See moreresources; (D) The willfulness of the defendant's failure to pay; and (E) Any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's ability to pay."
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Arkansas |
Drain v. State, 10 Ark. App. 338, 664 S.W.2d 484 (1984), citing Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983); see also Ark. Code + See moreAnn. § 5-4-203(a)(3) and (4) (Supp. 1995).
|
Imprisonment of an indigent defendant for failure to pay a fine violates the defendants equal protection rights. |
This statute basically codifies the principles established by the cases of Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971), and Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. + See more235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), both of which stand *341 for the proposition that a sentence to imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine works an invidious discrimination against indigent defendants in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
Enforcement | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | State v. Gaylord, 78 Haw. 127, 155, 890 P.2d 1167, 1195 (1995) holding modified by State v. Hussein, 122 Haw. 495, 229 P.3d 313 (2010) |
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).
|
Must determine make finding that defendant can afford to pay and prescribe manner of payment |
In addition, we hold that the sentencing court's restitution order failed to comply with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706605(1)(d) and was illegally imposed. In disregard of Johnson, 68 Haw. at + See more29798, 711 P.2d at 1299, the sentencing court failed to make any finding that $122,248.95 was an amount that Gaylord could afford to pay in restitution (indeed, as noted, the sentencing court viewed Gaylord's sources of restitution as highly unlikely and highly speculative and unreliable) and to prescribe the manner of payment. To compound the error, in its December 13, 1991 judgment of conviction, the sentencing court expressly and improperly delegated the judicial function of determining the manner of payment to an administrative bodythe Hawaii Paroling Authority. Johnson, 68 Haw. at 297, 711 P.2d at 1299; Murray, 63 Haw. at 25, 621 P.2d at 343.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, 120 Haw. 51, 59, 201 P.3d 564, 572 (2008) | Does the states separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Legislature allowed to delegate collection power to judiciary |
The legislature may delegate the state's police power to state authorities to allow them to assess fees. Medeiros, 89 Hawaii at 366, 973 P.2d at 741. Generally, a fee is + See moreexchanged for a service rendered or a benefit conferred, and the amount of the fee normally bears a relationship to the value of the service or benefit. Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 587 N.W.2d 264, 269 (1998).
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | State v. Medeiros, 89 Haw. 361, 367 (1999) | Other applicable caselaw |
Accordingly, we hereby adopt a modified Emerson College test for determining whether a charge is a fee or a tax, in which we analyze whether the charge (1) applies to + See morethe direct beneficiary of a particular service, (2) is allocated directly to defraying the costs of providing the service, and (3) is reasonably proportionate to the benefit received.
|