State v. Kay, 162 N.H. 237

Defendant Kay pleaded guilty to two felonies for failure to pay child support, owing about $70,000 across two cases.
Sentencing ordered two concurrent 2–5 year prison terms suspended on probation through DHHS, with probation conditions including child support payments and reporting to DHHS.
Probation officer Jeffrey issued a weekly payment schedule ($91.65) and required wage assignment and reporting of employment status.
Kay worked briefly in January at Sterling Linen, then June at Fletcher Sandblasting, with wage-assignment payments during employment but no payments otherwise.
Kay stopped reporting to probation after unemployment and did not seek modification of payments; probation violation report followed in August 2008.
Superior Court found violations and sentenced Kay to 3.5–7 years in prison in December 2009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation conditions were validly imposed or modified	Kay claims conditions were not imposed by sentencing court	Kay argues probation terms beyond sentence were invalid	No error; implied authority to set conditions exists; notice given by probation terms
Sufficiency of evidence for nonpayment due to hardship	State shows nonpayment despite employment, warranting violation	Kay unable to pay due to hardship and efforts made	Evidence sufficient; Kay failed to demonstrate Bona fide efforts to pay or maintain employment
Whether due process required explicit listing of all probation terms	Due process requires notice of all terms	Not required to list every detail; implied terms exist	Not plain error; notice given and terms implied by probation

State v. Merrill, 160 N.H. 467 (2010) (probation terms set by officer; notice adequate for due process)
State v. Dumont, 145 N.H. 240 (2000) (sufficiency standard for probation violation is de novo; burden on defendant to show bona fide efforts to pay)
State v. Fowlie, 138 N.H. 234 (1994) (ability to pay; can revoke if no bona fide efforts to pay or borrow money)
State v. Budgett, 146 N.H. 135 (2001) (due process warning when probation is conditioned on non-criminal acts)
State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301 (2007) (requirement that sentencing court clearly delineate retained discretion and modification conditions)
State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (constitutional approach; use of state constitution with federal guidance)
State v. Parker, 155 N.H. 89 (2007) (interpretation of trial court order; terms of probation implied and reviewable as law)
State v. Spinale, 156 N.H. 456 (2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in probation revocation)
Lake Winnipesaukee Resort, 159 N.H. 42 (2009) (de novo review of legal sufficiency in probation context)