Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

3 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

Connecticut Molinas v. Comm'r of Correction, 231 Conn. 514, 524–25 (1994)
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).
To establish a valid waiver of the petitioner's claim of indigency, the commissioner would have had to have made an affirmative showing that the petitioner, at the time of
+ See more
the plea bargain, was apprised of, and understood, the contours of the constitutional right not to be incarcerated because of indigency and the consequences of a waiver of that constitutional right. Such an affirmative showing would require evidence that the petitioner had been advised that: (1) he had a constitutional right not to be incarcerated solely because of his inability to pay a fine; (2) he would waive that right by agreeing to the committed fine; (3) the effect of a waiver would be that he would not be released on parole until the fine was paid, regardless of the reason for its nonpayment;13 (4) to pay off the committed fine, he would earn credits during his incarceration, subsequent to his parole, in accordance with a disclosed rate schedule; and (5) he would retain the right to pay the outstanding balance of the fine at any time during his incarceration and could thereby remove his ineligibility for early release. In the absence of any such showing, the commissioner's categorical claim of waiver cannot be sustained.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New Hampshire State v. Haas, 155 N.H. 612, 613–14, 927 A.2d 1209, 1210 (2007) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? Statute requiring defendant to reimburse State for costs of his legal representation did not violate constitutional right to substantive due process
The purpose of the statute is to require that those who are financially able to do so, pay for a service that they received from the State. There is nothing
+ See more
illegitimate in the governmental interest in recouping costs expended for public defense whether or not the defendant is convicted. Moreover, the statutory scheme under RSA 604-A:9 is rationally related to this purpose in that it inquires into a defendant's *614 ability to pay and outlines procedures for recoupment orders, collection and appeal of such orders.
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New Hampshire State v. Fowlie, 138 N.H. 234, 236–37, 636 A.2d 1037, 1039 (1994) Other applicable case law If the defendant then demonstrates sufficient bona fide efforts to repay his debt, alternatives to imprisonment must be considered by the court before probation may be revoked and imprisonment ordered
We held in Wallace that in a criminal contempt proceeding where a defendant introduces evidence of inability to pay, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's intentional
+ See more
noncompliance with the court's order. Probation violation, however, is not a criminal offense, and revocation requires only a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, of misplaced trust. . . The State's initial burden when, as here, it brings a petition, is to show that the defendant did not meet a condition of his sentence, in this case, the payment of restitution. The court then “must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay.” Bearden, 461 U.S. at 672, 103 S.Ct. at 2072. If the defendant then “demonstrate[s] sufficient bona fide efforts to repay his debt,” id. at 671, 103 S.Ct. at 2072, alternatives to imprisonment must be considered by the court before probation may be revoked and imprisonment ordered. Id. at 672, 103 S.Ct. at 2072.
Ability to pay