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
|
Iowa | State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647, 649 (Iowa 1987) |
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).
|
A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. | A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Iowa | State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) | A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. | A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order, however, has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. | Ability to pay | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Iowa | Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 2000) | Ability to pay must be determined before imposition. |
Constitutionally, a court must determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay before entering an order requiring such defendant to pay criminal restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.2. Section 910.2 + See moreauthorizes a court to order the offender to make restitution of court costs and court-appointed attorney's fees “to the extent that the offender is reasonably able to do so.
|
Ability to pay | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Iowa | State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) | Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? |
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant + See moreis reasonably able to pay.
|
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant + See moreis reasonably able to pay. . . . Thus, before ordering payment for court-appointed attorney fees and court costs, the court must consider the defendant's ability to pay.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Kentucky | Maynes v. Com., 361 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Ky. 2012) |
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).
|
The court may consider not only current ability to pay but future ability to pay as well |
Having carefully considered the applicable statutes, we conclude that the trial court was authorized under Kentucky law to impose court costs despite Maynes's status as an indigent defendant entitled to + See morethe services of a public defender. While the directive in KRS 31.110(1) that the court shall waive all costs for such defendants seems mandatory at first blush, a full reading of the 1972 legislation and the current DPA Act belies that conclusion. From its inception through the present, the DPA Act has allowed for imposition of costs against those DPA-represented defendants who can afford to pay. Moreover, a person may qualify as needy under KRS 31.110 because he cannot afford the services of an attorney yet not be poor under KRS 23A.205 as it has existed since 2002 unless he is also unable to pay court costs without depriving himself or his dependents of the necessities of life, including food, shelter or clothing. Finally, the KRS 23A.205 directive to consider not only the defendant's present ability to pay court costs but also his ability in the foreseeable future cannot be overlooked. The trial court's determination here that Maynes would be able to earn enough within the six months following his sentencing to afford the costs required by KRS 23A.205 is not clearly erroneous and, thus, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the portion of Maynes's sentence imposing those costs.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Kentucky | McEntire v. Com., 344 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010) | Are there limits to the states ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | Yes, the state court must first hold a nonadversarial hearing to determine an individual's ability to pay a public defender fee before imposing the fee | On remand, the trial court shall hold a nonadversarial hearing to determine whether McEntire has the ability to pay the assessed costs and fees as required by KRS 31.211(1). | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Massachusetts | Com. v. Gomes, 552 N.E.2d 101, 104 (Mass. 1990) |
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 has a right to a hearing to determine willful default and a right to counsel at the hearing. |
The Commonwealth concedes that the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the default. We agree. ….The defendant also maintains that he had the right to be represented by counsel + See moreat the hearing that should have been held on his default. He is correct.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Massachusetts | Com. v. Henry, 55 N.E.3d 943, 949 (Mass. 2016) |
In determining the defendant's ability to pay, the judge must consider the financial resources of the defendant, including income and net assets, and the defendant's financial obligations, including the amount + See morenecessary to meet minimum basic human needs such as food, shelter, and clothing for the defendant and his or her dependents.judge may also consider a defendant's ability to earn based on “the defendant's employment history and financial prospects,” but a judge may attribute potential income to the defendant only after specifically finding that the defendant is earning less than he or she could through reasonable effort. Judge should make determination at close of evidentiary hearing. Defndant has burden of proving inability to pay restitution.
|
“The amount of restitution is not merely the measure of the value of the goods and money *121 stolen from the victim by the defendant; ... the judge must also + See moredecide the amount that the defendant is able to pay and how such payment is to be made.” In practice, this means that, at the close of the evidentiary hearing, the judge must make two findings in deciding whether to order restitution as a condition of probation and, where ordered, the amount of restitution to be paid during the period of probation. First, the judge must determine the amount of the victim's actual economic loss causally connected to the defendant's crime. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proof as to this finding. The order of restitution may not exceed this amount.Second, the judge must determine the amount the defendant is able to pay.Where a defendant claims that he or she is unable to pay the full amount of the victim's economic loss, the defendant bears the burden of proving an inability to pay. Because we have not previously had the opportunity to articulate the legal standard for determining the defendant's ability to pay restitution, we do so here for the first time. In determining the defendant's ability to pay, the judge must consider the financial resources of the defendant, including income and net assets, and the defendant's financial obligations, including the amount necessary to meet minimum basic human needs such as food, shelter, and clothing for the defendant and his or her dependents.judge may also consider a defendant's ability to earn based on “the defendant's employment history and financial prospects,” but a judge may attribute potential income to the defendant only after specifically finding that the defendant is earning less than he or she could through reasonable effort.
|
Ability to pay | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | In re Anonymous Former Prob. Judge, 358 S.C. 1, 3 (2004) | Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Any such fees must be deposited into the general fund and cannot be used to directly compensate judges |
The Committee noted that this Court, in In the Matter of Johnson, 302 S.C. 532, 397 S.E.2d 522 (1990), had held that (1) fees collected for services rendered by a + See moreprobate judge in his capacity as probate judge are governed by Article 7 whether specifically enumerated therein or not, and (2) failure to deposit fees in the county fund was a violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to observe high standards of conduct and respect and comply with the law.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | Singletary v. Wilson, 191 S.C. 153, 3 S.E.2d 802, 804 (1939) | Other applicable caselaw | The admonition of constitutional provision, forbidding infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and imposition of excessive fines, is addressed to judiciary, as well as Legislature. |
It necessarily follows that the discretion of the trial Court in its determination of the amount of the penalty, where the maximum amount of the fine is not fixed by + See morethe statute, must be subject to be reviewed on appeal to this Court, if clearly abused, under Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution, which not only forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, but forbids the imposition of excessive fines.
|
|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Murray v. State, 855 P.2d 350), (WY 1993) |
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).
|
With respect to imposing a surcharge on a defendant under Section 1-40-119, the court is required to find an ability to pay before ordering an assessment. |
We agree with Appellant that the court was required to find that he had [**28] an ability to pay before ordering the assessment. Murray v. State, 1993 Wyo. LEXIS 110, *27-28, + See more855 P.2d 350, 359 (Wyo. 1993)
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Murray v. State, 855 P.2d 350), (Wyo. 1993) |
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).
|
With respect to imposing restitution under Section 7-9-103(a) and 7-9-102, the court must only make a specific finding when the defendant does not have any ability to pay. |
Henceforth, the court must make a specific finding only when the defendant does not have a present or prospective ability to pay. Although the court is not required to specifically + See morefind that a defendant has the ability to pay, the record must still contain evidence to support the existence of a present or future ability to pay. Murray v. State, 1993 Wyo. LEXIS 110, *26-27, 855 P.2d 350, 359 (Wyo. 1993)
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Wyoming | Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, 433, (Wyo. 1990) | Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | The court has the authority to require the defendant's payment of his legal fees. |
Under W.S. 7-6-106(d) (June 1987 Repl.) the courts have the authority to order a defendant to repay the state for the cost of defense services.
Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, + See more433, 1990 Wyo. LEXIS 119, *100 (Wyo. 1990)
|
Fines and fees |