State v. Moore, 2012 MT 95

Moore was convicted of felony DUI under § 61-8-401, MCA.
The district court sentenced Moore and imposed costs for appointed counsel ($1,340), prosecution ($100), and jury ($1,447.50).
A PSI prepared January 3, 2011 showed Moore had $7,900 in assets and $3,500 in debts, was not employed at the time, and had an injury that may affect future earnings.
The PSI did not address Moore’s ability to pay those additional trial costs, including jury, prosecution, or appointed counsel costs.
Moore’s counsel objected to the costs as indicant of indigence; the court imposed the costs and did not inquire about his ability to pay; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly investigated Moore's ability to pay	Moore; court failed to assess ability to pay appointed counsel and prosecution costs.	State; Moore could likely pay given assets and future employment prospects.	District court failed to investigate ability to pay; remand for proper inquiry.
Whether jury costs may be imposed without independent ability-to-pay analysis	Moore; imposing jury costs risks chilling indigent right to a jury trial.	State; jury costs are permissible with ability-to-pay determinations.	Jury costs require ability-to-pay analysis; remand to determine payment capacity and protect right to jury trial.
Disposition of the case given failure to determine ability to pay	Remand to properly assess all costs under §§ 46-8-113 and 46-18-232.	N/A	Reverse and remand for determinations of ability to pay all costs.

State v. McLeod, 313 Mont. 358 (Mont. 2002) (district court must investigate ability to pay fines and other costs before imposing)
State v. Blackwell, 306 Mont. 267 (Mont. 2001) (jury-cost imposition requires independent ability-to-pay analysis; avoid reliance on improper rule)
State v. Covington, 364 Mont. 118 (Mont. 2012) (enhanced Montana jury-trial right; costs must not chill indigent defendants)