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
|
Georgia | Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699 (1942) | Does the states separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? |
No, Statute authorizing counties and municipal corporations to construct revenue producing undertakings, and in anticipation of the collection of revenue therefrom to issue certificates payable solely from such revenue, does + See morenot violate constitutional provision limiting the powers of counties and municipalities in relation to contracting debts
|
neither the act nor the ordinance violates the constitutional provision above referred to. | Revenue flow |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | Messenger v. State, 72 S.E.2d 460 (1952) | Other applicable caselaw | The inhibition of the constitution against imprisonment for debt applies to any and all such imprisonment, irrespective of the period of its duration or the means whereby it is accomplished | the Constitution of Georgia forbids imprisonment for debt | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | State v. Higgins, 326 S.E.2d 728, (Ga. 1985) | Other applicable caselaw | invalidating an income tax law that authorized punishment solely for the nonpayment of income taxes |
[A] criminal provision drawn in terms of a wilful failure to pay tax would be an entirely different matter, as it would catch the intentional tax evader without at the + See moresame time ensnaring the hapless pauper.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Georgia | Johnson v. State, 707 S.E.2d 373, 374 | Other applicable caselaw |
Before revoking a defendant's probation based solely on the failure to pay fines, fees, or surchagres costs, the trial court is required to make a finding as to defendant's wilfulness, + See moreand if it concluded that defendant was not at fault, the court is required to consider other punishment alternatives.
|
"Although we do not interfere with a revocation of probation unless the trial court has manifestly abused its discretion, we conclude here that such an abuse occurred. In the instant + See morecase, the trial court made no express or written findings as to the reasons for Johnson's failure to pay or as to the inadequacy of alternative punishments. Rather, it inquired only as to Johnson's fitness to work before deciding to revoke Johnson's probation. Therefore, because the trial court made this determination without making the findings required by Bearden, it committed reversible error." Johnson v. State, 707 S.E.2d 373, 374(citing Bearden v. Georgia, 460 U.S. 660 (1983))
|
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 |