In what circumstances will a court strike down an order requiring a defendant to pay the costs of an examination conducted by the local sheriff's department of sexual assault victims?

In People v. Wardlow (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 360, the defendant contended on appeal that the trial court improperly ordered him to pay restitution to the local sheriff's department pursuant to section 1203.1h. (Id. at p. 371.) There was no evidence presented to the trial court as to what, if any, costs the local sheriff's department incurred in obtaining an examination of the sexual assault victims, nor did the court determine whether the defendant had the ability to pay the costs. (Id. at pp. 371-372.) The appellate court ordered the restitution order stricken. "Nothing in the record suggests any excuse for the failure to determine the costs at the time of the sentencing here . . . . Nor is there any excuse for the court's failure to determine whether [the defendant] had the ability to reimburse the sheriff's department for the costs of examining [the victims]." (Id. at p. 372, fn. omitted.) Further, the court rejected the Attorney General's argument that the lack of an express finding of the ability to pay did not defeat the order. "The

Page 22