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
State | Citation | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Connecticut | Molinas v. Comm'r of Correction, 231 Conn. 514, 52425 (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 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).
|
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 morethe 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 | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Oregon | State v. Mickow, 277 Or.App. 497, 502 (2016) |
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 must determine that the defendant is or may be able to pay the fees, and take the financial resources of the defendant into account, as well as the nature + See moreof the burden that the fee obligation would place on that person
|
Among the safeguards that were pivotal to the [Supreme] Court's conclusion [upholding Oregon's ability-to-pay determination post-Gideon] were the statutory requirements that the sentencing court must (1) determine that the defendant + See moreis or may be able to pay the fees; and (2) take the financial resources of the defendant into account, as well as the nature of the burden that the fee obligation would place on that person. Id. at 45, 53 n. 12, 94 S.Ct. 2116.
State v. Mickow, 277 Or.App. 497, 502 (2016)
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Oregon | Bobo v. Kulongoski, 338 Or. 111, 122 (2005) | Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? |
Unclear, and answer is unavailable as to courts, but a line of cases suggests that merely having a fund where assessed fees support state functions does not constitute a conflict + See moreof interest
|
Considering the wording of Article IV, section 18, its history, and the case law surrounding it, we conclude that the question whether a bill is a “bill for raising revenue” + See moreentails two issues. The first is whether the bill collects or brings money into the treasury. If it does not, that is the end of the inquiry. If a bill does bring money into the treasury, the remaining question is whether the bill possesses the essential features of a bill levying a tax. As Northern Counties Trust makes clear, bills that assess a fee for a specific purpose are not “bills raising revenue” even though they collect or bring money into the treasury.
|
Revenue flow |
Add to Dashboard
|
Oregon | State v. Fuller, 12 Or.App. 152, 158–59 (1973), aff'd, 417 U.S. 40 (1974) | Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | Yes, but such limits are predicated on the indigency of the defendant |
Thus, an indigent defendant is entitled to free counsel immediately (which is when he needs it), but may be later required to repay this cost if he ‘is or will + See morebe’ able to do so, that is, if he has ceased or likely will cease to be indigent. A defendant is not denied counsel while he is indigent, and he is required to repay appointed counsel's fee only if and when he is no longer indigent. If there is no likelihood that a defendant's indigency will end, a judgment for costs cannot be imposed. ORS 161.665(3).
State v. Fuller, 12 Or.App. 152, 158–59 (1973), aff'd, 417 U.S. 40 (1974)
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
Oregon | State v. Goodenow, 251 Or.App. 139, 144–45 (2012) | Other applicable caselaw |
Courts are not limited by any numerical or proportionality requirement to seize the proceeds of a crime, in this case, all the earnings from a winning lottery ticket purchased using + See morean illegally obtained credit card
|
Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes do not limit the amount of property that may be forfeited as the proceeds of prohibited conduct. They do not require courts to determine whether a + See moreforfeiture of a defendant's property is proportional to the defendant's crime. ORS 131.585(1) (“The court shall enter judgment to the extent that the property is proceeds of the crime of conviction or of past prohibited conduct that is similar to the crime of conviction.”). (In that respect, the statutes treat the forfeiture of the proceeds of defendants' crimes differently from the forfeiture of instrumentalities of defendants' crimes. The statutes require courts to determine whether the forfeiture of an instrumentality of a defendant's crime, such as a vehicle or building used in the commission of a crime, is proportional to the crime and identify factors to consider in making that determination. ORS 131.585(2)(a)-(g).4)
State v. Goodenow, 251 Or.App. 139, 144–45 (2012)
|
Enforcement |