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
|
Texas | Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), reh'g denied (Sept. 16, 2015),, cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1188, 194 L. Ed. 2d 202 (2016) | Does the state’s separation of powers doctrine limit the ability of courts to impose or collect revenue? | Court imposition of costs is not unconstitutional under federal or state constitutional law as long as the money collected will go toward a "criminal justice purpose" |
"[T]he statute under which court costs are assessed (or an interconnected statute) provides for an allocation of such court costs to be expended for legitimate criminal justice purposes, then the + See morestatute allows for a constitutional application that will not render the courts tax gatherers in violation of the separation of powers clause. A criminal justice purpose is one that relates to the administration of our criminal justice system. Whether a criminal justice purpose is “legitimate” is a question to be answered on a statute-by-statute/case-by-case basis."
|
Fines and fees |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Texas | Gross v. State, 279 S.W.3d 791, 793–94 (Tex. App. 2007) abrogated for other reasons by Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) | Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? | No, so long, as the defendant has the ability to off-set the State's expenses |
"nonindigent defendant is required to pay for counsel. To require an indigent to reimburse the county, to the extent he is able, for the expense of furnished counsel tends to + See moreput indigents and nonindigents on the same basis and is consistent with due process. The State of Texas provides an important service in providing legal services to those indigent citizens who cannot afford to pay for their own defense. Because of this service provided to indigents, the State has a significant interest in assuring that persons with financial resources pay for their own representation and do not take a free ride at the expense of its taxpayers. Thus, it is not an inherent violation of due process for the State to take reasonable steps to collect on expenditures made on behalf of those who have the ability to off-set the State's expenses."
|
Fines and fees |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W. 2d 662 (2007) | Other applicable caselaw |
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay restitution to murder victim's adult children for expenses arising from their voluntary attendance at murder trial, as their + See moreclaimed expenses resulted from the crime; abrogating In re Welfare of D.D.G., 532 N.W.2d 279, State v. DeGrote, 2004 WL 556946. M.S.A. §§ 611A.04(1)(a), 611A.01(b).
|
Fines and fees | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Minnesota | State v. Lopez-Solis, 589 N.W. 2d 290, 205 (1999) | Costs incurred by a medical examiner in conducting an autopsy, preparing an autopsy report, and testifying at trial are not recoverable under the prosecution costs statute |
Lopez–Solis argues that the costs of a medical examiner conducting an autopsy, preparing an autopsy report, and testifying at trial are costs that should not be imposed against a criminal defendant + See morefollowing conviction. Lopez–Solis contends that because the legislature requires county sheriffs to report all violent deaths to the medical examiner and because it is within the medical examiner's discretion whether to conduct an autopsy, the medical examiner should be viewed as an independent party. See Minn.Stat. § 390.32 (1996). We agree with Lopez–Solis that expenses incurred by medical examiners in conducting an autopsy, preparing an autopsy report, and testifying at trial may not be imposed against a criminal defendant following conviction. These services are provided independent of a criminal prosecution and therefore are not recoverable. Therefore, the $1,200 awarded by the trial court for Dr. Roe's trial testimony is reversed. State v. Lopez-Solis, 589 N.W. 2d 290, 205 (1999)
|
Fines and fees |