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
|
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
|
Utah | Neilson v. Dennett, 450 P.2d 93, 95 (Utah 1969) |
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).
|
ability to pay should be determined at the time order is imposed to pay money. |
However, in this case it was incumbent upon the trial court to find that the appellant at the time the order was made had the ability to pay over the + See moremoney and thereafter refused to do so before the judge could hold the appellant in contempt for failure to pay
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | State v. Vincent, 883 P.2d 278, 283 (Utah 1994) | Other applicable case law |
A defendant has the initial burden of establishing indigence. The defendant must establish that payment would place an undue hardship on the defendant's ability to provide for the basic necessities + See moreof life
|
[T]he defendants bear the initial burden of establishing their indigence. Generally speaking, a person is indigent for purposes of sections 77321 and 2 if payments for counsel or transcripts would + See moreplace an undue hardship on the defendant's ability to provide the basic necessities of life for the defendant and the defendant's family.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Utah | State v. Haston, 811 P.2d 929, 936 (Utah Ct. App. 1991), rev'd, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) | Other applicable case law |
Imposition of fine and the amount of the fine is left to the discretion of the court. A judge need not give an explanation for the fine he or she + See moreimposes.
|
Imposition of a fine, and the accompanying mandatory surcharge, is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Utah Code Ann. §§ 6363a1 (1989), 763301.5(5) (1990). No particular + See moreexplanation needs to be made by the trial court.
|
Fines and fees |