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
|
Delaware | Potter v. State, 547 A.2d 595, 598 (Del. 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 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).
|
In felony cases that may result in a prison sentence, the Delaware Supreme Court holds that the trial court must make a determination of indigence if indigence is raised as + See morean issue. The defendant has the burden of proof and is entitled to a hearing on the issue of indigence. The Court is silent on the substantive factors that must be considered when making a determination of indigence.
|
If the issue of indigence is raised in a case involving a felony charge which may result in a prison sentence, this Court has held that the trial court has + See morea duty to make a determination on the record as to the defendant's alleged indigence before the case proceeds to trial. Stacey v. State, Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 379, 380 (1976) (per curiam). The defendant has the burden of establishing a right to counsel at public expense, but he is entitled to a hearing on the issue of indigence. Id. This Court also held that it is error for a trial court to presume that a defendant is not entitled to counsel from a silent record. Id. Potter v. State, 547 A.2d 595, 598 (Del. 1988)
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | People v. Jackson, 483 Mich. 271, 769 N.W.2d 630 (2009) |
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).
|
Defendant is not entitled to an assessment of ability to pay fee for court-appointed attorney until the imposition of the fee is enforced |
Indeed, whenever a trial court attempts to enforce its imposition of a fee for a court-appointed attorney under MCL 769.1k, the defendant must be advised of this enforcement action and + See morebe given an opportunity to contest the enforcement on the basis of his indigency. Thus, trial courts should not entertain defendants' ability-to-pay-based challenges to the imposition of fees until enforcement of that imposition has begun. . . . The operative question for any such evaluation will be whether a defendant **643 is indigent and unable to pay at that time or whether forced payment would work a manifest hardship on the defendant at that time.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Michigan | People v. Cunningham, 496 Mich. 145, 147, 852 N.W.2d 118, 120 (2014) | Imposing costs beyond those specified in statute |
The authority to impose criminal costs is statutory. Statute stating that if defendant is guilty, court may impose any cost in addition to the minimum state cost, does not provide + See morecourts with the independent authority to impose any costs upon defendants, and instead, statute provides courts with authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.
|
“The right of the court to impose costs in a criminal case is statutory.” . . . . Thus, courts may impose costs in criminal cases only where such costs + See moreare authorized by statute. In a variety of circumstances, the Legislature has chosen to provide courts with the authority to impose costs. For instance, with regard to certain offenses, courts may require criminal defendants to pay the “costs of prosecution.” . . . we conclude that MCL 769.1k (1)(b)(ii ) does not provide courts with the independent authority to impose “any cost.” Instead, we hold that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii ) provides courts with the authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.
|