WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 636

Enact the Auto Insurance Transparency Act

136th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Mark Johnson

HB 636 reformulates criminal-justice costs by requiring ability-to-pay determinations, mandating written waivers with findings, and capping forensic, lab, and expert fees.

Referred to committee
#commerce #consumerprotection #insurance #motorvehicles #transportation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 636

HB 636 — Enact Criminal Justice Debt Reform

Status: Passed 1st Reading
Introduced: November 12, 2024
Subject areas: court costs & fees, criminal procedure, courts (district/superior), DMV/drivers’ licenses, fines & penalties, crime laboratories, parole & probation, inmates/jails

Main purpose

HB 636 aims to reform how court costs and ancillary criminal-justice fees are imposed, waived, and reported. The bill emphasizes assessment of a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing costs, narrows when certain charges may be assessed, and adds procedural safeguards for waiving or reducing costs. It also clarifies and caps certain forensic and expert cost assessments.

Key provisions

  • Ability-to-pay determination: Courts must determine a defendant’s ability to pay before assessing court costs in superior or district criminal cases (including convictions, guilty pleas, or nolo contendere pleas). No costs may be assessed if a case is dismissed.
  • Waiver/remission procedural protections: A court may waive or reduce costs only upon entry of a written order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Before waiving/remitting any court fines or costs, the court must notify all government entities “directly affected,” provide at least 15 days’ notice by first-class mail, and give them the opportunity to be heard.
  • Adjustment of specific fees:
    • Failure-to-appear fee: changed/reduced to $100 (text shows reduction from $200 to $100).
    • Failure-to-pay fee remains $50 if not paid within 40 days.
  • Forensic/laboratory costs:
    • Courts may order defendants to pay actual forensic/laboratory costs up to a cap of $600 when such testing (DNA, toxicology, controlled-substance analysis, digital forensics) was performed as part of the investigation leading to conviction.
    • Local/private laboratory costs and expert-witness fees also capped at $600 where the court finds the local/private work is equivalent to State Crime Laboratory services.
  • Expert witness costs: If an expert employed by a crime laboratory performs analyses and testifies, courts may order payment of actual costs up to $600, in addition to lab costs where applicable.
  • Assessment limitations: Several categories of costs are limited to cases in which the specified laboratory or expert work was performed as part of the investigation and a conviction results.

Who would be affected

  • Defendants (especially low-income persons): fewer and more targeted costs; stronger consideration of ability to pay; clearer waiver pathways.
  • Courts and judicial administration: new factual findings and written orders required; additional notice/administrative duties.
  • Local and state forensic service providers and prosecutors: potential limits on recoverable testing/expert costs; remittance destinations clarified (State Treasurer, Dept. of Justice, or local units).
  • Local and state budgets: reduced or restructured revenue from certain costs and fees; potential shift in who bears forensic/expert expenses.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced Nov. 12, 2024; status indicated as “Passed 1st Reading.”
  • The bill text amends G.S. 7A‑304 (costs in criminal actions) and related subsections describing lab/expert fees and remittance. Further committee consideration, amendments, and readings are expected before final passage.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Reduces risk of imposing unaffordable criminal-justice debt but may lower fee-derived revenues used for labs or court support unless alternate funding is identified.
  • Places administrative burdens on courts to document findings and provide notice to impacted governmental entities when waiving costs.
  • Clarifies when county or local labs may seek cost recovery, potentially affecting local law‑enforcement budgets and contracts with private labs.

If you want, I can prepare a side-by-side comparison showing the current statutory language and the exact proposed changes to each subsection (including struck/added text).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.