California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Feiock, In re, 215 Cal.App.3d 141, 263 Cal.Rptr. 437 (Cal. App. 1989):
8 This answers the dissent's question on why People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 189 Cal.Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 does not apply here. In Roder the court dealt with an express statutory element which could be established by an express statutory presumption. The evil was not that it was applied to a particular class, but that it was applied at all. Here, ability to pay is just not an element; it is a defense.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.