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
|
Hawaii | State v. Gaylord, 78 Haw. 127, 155, 890 P.2d 1167, 1195 (1995) holding modified by State v. Hussein, 122 Haw. 495, 229 P.3d 313 (2010) |
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).
|
Must determine make finding that defendant can afford to pay and prescribe manner of payment |
In addition, we hold that the sentencing court's restitution order failed to comply with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706605(1)(d) and was illegally imposed. In disregard of Johnson, 68 Haw. at + See more29798, 711 P.2d at 1299, the sentencing court failed to make any finding that $122,248.95 was an amount that Gaylord could afford to pay in restitution (indeed, as noted, the sentencing court viewed Gaylord's sources of restitution as highly unlikely and highly speculative and unreliable) and to prescribe the manner of payment. To compound the error, in its December 13, 1991 judgment of conviction, the sentencing court expressly and improperly delegated the judicial function of determining the manner of payment to an administrative bodythe Hawaii Paroling Authority. Johnson, 68 Haw. at 297, 711 P.2d at 1299; Murray, 63 Haw. at 25, 621 P.2d at 343.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, 120 Haw. 51, 59, 201 P.3d 564, 572 (2008) | Does the states separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Legislature allowed to delegate collection power to judiciary |
The legislature may delegate the state's police power to state authorities to allow them to assess fees. Medeiros, 89 Hawaii at 366, 973 P.2d at 741. Generally, a fee is + See moreexchanged for a service rendered or a benefit conferred, and the amount of the fee normally bears a relationship to the value of the service or benefit. Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 587 N.W.2d 264, 269 (1998).
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | State v. Medeiros, 89 Haw. 361, 367 (1999) | Other applicable caselaw |
Accordingly, we hereby adopt a modified Emerson College test for determining whether a charge is a fee or a tax, in which we analyze whether the charge (1) applies to + See morethe direct beneficiary of a particular service, (2) is allocated directly to defraying the costs of providing the service, and (3) is reasonably proportionate to the benefit received.
|
||
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 moreillegitimate 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 |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
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 morenoncompliance 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 |