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
|
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
|
Missouri | Spencer v. Basinger, 562 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Mo. 1978) |
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).
|
After a prima facie showing of indigency has been made, an individual may not be incarcerated for nonpayment of fine and costs |
A prima facie showing of indigency has been made. Under such circumstances petitioner may not be confined further at this time for nonpayment of fine and costs. See Hendrix v. + See moreLark, 482 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. banc 1972). This is not to suggest that those who neglect or refuse to pay a fine may not be incarcerated for their refusal so to do within the constitutional standards described in Hendrix.
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Missouri | Hendrix v. Lark, 482 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Mo. 1972) | Other applicable caselaw | Prisoner's incarceration to satisfy payment of fines and costs levied upon her without giving indigent prisoner option of paying the same by installments denied her the equal protection of law. |
St. Louis must provide indigent defendants an opportunity to pay fines in reasonable installments and that portion of Sec. 773.070 of the Revised Code of the city providing the court + See moreshall not stay the payment of any fine and calling for its execution, i.e., immediate imprisonment in lieu of payment, *429 is unconstitutional under the above decisions.
|
Enforcement |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Missouri | Davis v. City of Charleston, Mo., 635 F.Supp. 197, 198-199 (1986) | upon raising inference that poverty is reason for non-payment rather than contempt, defendant is entitled to hearing on issue of indigency |
As stated in this Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 28, 1986: It must be remembered that the remedy § 560.031 intends is not an imprisonment for non-payment of fine + See moreas such, but a penalty by contempt of court for the failure to obey—either intentionally or by want of good-faith effort to comply—the sentence of the court.
|
Ability to pay |