Hubbry Logo
Nolo contendereNolo contendereMain
Open search
Nolo contendere
Community hub
Nolo contendere
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nolo contendere
Nolo contendere
Nolo contendere
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Nolo contendere (/ˌnoʊloʊ kənˈtɛndəri/) is a type of legal plea used in some jurisdictions in the United States. It is also referred to as a plea of no contest or no defense. It is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea means that defendants refuse to admit guilt but accept punishment as if guilty, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1]

The plea is recognized in United States federal criminal courts, and many state criminal courts. In many jurisdictions, a plea of nolo contendere is not a typical right and carries various restrictions on its use. Nolo contendere originated from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend" (nōlō contendere, Latin pronunciation: [ˈnoːɫoː kɔnˈtɛndɛrɛ]).

United States

[edit]

In the United States, state law determines whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant may plead no contest in state criminal cases. In federal court, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only allow a nolo contendere plea to be entered with the court's consent; before accepting the plea, the court is required to "consider the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice".[2]

Residual effects

[edit]

A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions. However, unlike a guilty plea, a defendant in a nolo contendere plea may not be required to allocute the charges. This means that a nolo contendere conviction typically may not be used to establish either negligence per se, malice, or whether the acts were committed at all in later civil proceedings related to the same set of facts as the criminal prosecution.[3]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,[3][4] and in those states whose rules of evidence are similar or identical to them, nolo contendere pleas may not be used to defeat the hearsay prohibition if offered as an "admission by [a] party-opponent".[5] Assuming the appropriate gravity of the charge, and all other things being equal, a guilty plea to the same charge would cause the reverse effect: An opponent at trial could introduce the plea, over a hearsay objection, as evidence to establish a certain fact.[4]

Compared with Alford plea

[edit]

Nolo contendere plea is similar to an Alford plea (also known as a "best interest plea"). An Alford plea allows a criminal defendant to formally record an admission of guilt for the charges, yet—at the same time— declare their innocence regarding those charges. Under an Alford plea, the defendant agrees to accept all the consequences of a guilty verdict—such as accepting punishment. An Alford plea bypasses the full process of a criminal trial.[6] The primary distinction between an Alford plea and a nolo contendere plea is that, in an Alford plea, the defendant pleads guilty (in a formal sense) yet in a nolo contendere plea, the defendant does not assert innocence or guilt. A formal admission of guilt under an Alford plea can be used against the defendant in future civil suits, whereas nolo contendere pleas cannot.[6]

Individual states

[edit]

Alaska

[edit]

In Alaska, a criminal conviction based on a nolo contendere plea may be used against the defendant in future civil actions. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that a "conviction based on a no contest plea will collaterally estop the criminal defendant from denying any element in a subsequent civil action against him that was necessarily established by the conviction, as long as the prior conviction was for a serious criminal offense and the defendant in fact had the opportunity for a full and fair hearing".[7][8]

California

[edit]

In California, a nolo contendere plea is known as a West plea after a seminal case involving plea bargains, People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. The state Board of Pharmacy considers a plea of nolo contendere to be deemed a conviction with regard to issuing licenses for pharmacies, pharmacists and drug wholesalers.

A nolo contendere plea to any felony is considered exactly equivalent to a guilty plea for the purposes of civil actions; this plea to any non-felony is not admissible to a civil action.[9]

Florida

[edit]

In Florida, the Supreme Court held in 2005 that no-contest convictions may be treated as prior convictions for the purposes of future sentencing.[10]

Michigan

[edit]

In Michigan, "A nolo contendere plea does not admit guilt, it merely communicates to the court that the criminal defendant does not wish to contest the state's accusations and will acquiesce in the imposition of punishment."[11] A nolo contendere plea may be appropriate "where the defendant would not be able to supply a sufficient factual basis for a guilty plea because he or she was intoxicated on the night of the incident, where there is the possibility of future civil litigation resulting from the offense, or where a defendant cannot remember the events which led to his or her being charged with a crime".[12]

A no contest plea prevents the court from eliciting a defendant's admission of guilt, but the result of the defendant's plea not to contest the charges against him or her is the same as if the defendant had admitted guilt. If a defendant pleads no contest to a charged offense, with the exception of questioning the defendant about his or her role in the charged offense, the court must proceed in the same manner as if the defendant had pleaded guilty.[13] A plea of no contest to a felony offense requires the court's consent.[14]

A defendant's no contest plea to criminal charges does not estop that defendant from denying responsibility in a later civil action arising from the same conduct.[15]

South Carolina

[edit]

According to South Carolina code, the defendant in any misdemeanor case in any of the courts may enter a plea of nolo contendere with the consent of the court. The plea of guilty will be recorded on defendant records and will not affect sentencing.[16]

Texas

[edit]

In Texas, the right to appeal the results of a plea bargain taken from a plea of either nolo contendere or "guilty" is highly restricted. Defendants who have entered a plea of nolo contendere may only appeal the judgment of the court if the appeal is based on written pretrial motions ruled upon by the court.[17]

Virginia

[edit]

The Virginia Rules of Evidence differ from the parallel federal rules in that a nolo contendere plea entered in a criminal case is admissible in a related civil proceeding.[18]

Commonwealth

[edit]

In the Commonwealth countries—such as England and Wales, Scotland, Canada, and Australia—the plea of nolo contendere is not permitted. The defendant must enter a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty". If a defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court will record a plea of "not guilty".[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nolo contendere

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nolo contendere, Latin for "I do not wish to contend," commonly known as a "no contest" , is a option in criminal proceedings where the neither admits nor denies guilt but waives the right to a and accepts and as if . Originating in English as an implied suitable for non-capital offenses, the allowed to submit to penalties like fines without a formal admission of guilt, with its last reported use in dating to 1702. It largely fell out of use in but was revived and formalized in the United States, particularly in the for cases like criminal antitrust prosecutions, and is now recognized in federal courts under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A key distinction from a guilty is that nolo contendere does not constitute an admission of facts usable against the in subsequent civil lawsuits arising from the same incident, thereby protecting against or enhanced civil liability, while still resulting in the same sentencing consequences in the criminal case. Courts exercise discretion in accepting such pleas, requiring consideration of the parties' views, the , and a factual basis for the charges, with the informed of rights waived and potential penalties, including consequences. Jurisdictional variations are significant: while permitted federally and in most states, some jurisdictions limit or prohibit it, and its effects on professional licensing, employment, or driver's licenses may mirror those of a guilty plea. This plea is often strategically employed to resolve cases efficiently without the evidentiary risks of or the broader admissions of guilt.

Definition and Etymology

A nolo contendere plea, translating from Latin as "I do not wish to contend," represents a defendant's decision in a criminal case neither to admit nor to deny guilt while accepting the conviction and its penalties, thereby waiving the right to a trial. This plea allows the court to proceed directly to sentencing without requiring an explicit confession of wrongdoing. In operational terms, a nolo contendere plea functions equivalently to a for sentencing purposes in the underlying criminal proceeding, enabling the imposition of fines, , or as applicable. However, it differs critically by not serving as an admission of guilt, which prevents its use as evidence against the in related civil actions, administrative proceedings, or other collateral matters stemming from the same factual events. Acceptance of a nolo contendere plea is not automatic and requires judicial approval in jurisdictions where it is permitted, such as under Federal Rule of 11, where the must personally advise the of the plea's consequences, including the forfeiture of and the treatment of the plea as a conviction for punishment purposes. In federal cases, prosecutorial consent is also typically necessary, as outlined in Department of Justice guidelines requiring approval before agreeing to such pleas. The U.S. has upheld the constitutional validity of the nolo contendere plea, as in Hudson v. (1926), confirming that its acceptance does not infringe on and allows for full criminal penalties, including , without an admission of guilt.

Phrase Origins

The term nolo contendere originates from Latin, literally translating to "I do not wish to contend." It breaks down into nōlō, meaning "I am unwilling" or "I do not wish," and contendere, signifying "to strive," "to contend," or "to dispute." This etymology underscores the plea's essence as a refusal to engage in formal dispute while implicitly yielding to judicial authority. The phrase entered English legal usage in the early during the reign of King Henry IV (1399–1413), with the first recorded instances appearing in records from 1407 and 1409. It evolved from medieval practices in which defendants, particularly in non-capital cases, could avoid a direct admission of guilt by submitting to , often to limit civil liabilities or expedite resolution. This approach treated the as an "implied ," allowing the to proceed to without a full . Although rooted in Latin, the nolo contendere plea developed within English common law traditions rather than as a direct import from Roman law, which featured related concepts of non-contestation in procedural disputes but lacked an equivalent formal plea. Early conceptualization drew on these classical ideas of yielding without contest to facilitate mercy or fines. By the 18th century, William Hawkins' influential treatise A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716) formalized it as a distinct option, defining an implied confession as one where "a defendant... doth not directly own himself guilty, but in a manner admits it by yielding to the King's mercy, and desiring to submit to a small fine." This work solidified its role in criminal procedure, distinguishing it from outright guilty pleas.

Historical Development

English Common Law Roots

The plea of nolo contendere, meaning "I do not wish to contend," originated in during the late 14th and early 15th centuries as a procedural device enabling defendants to forgo contesting charges without explicitly admitting guilt, thereby mitigating the risk of in an era dominated by harsh collateral penalties such as property forfeiture and bills of attainder. These consequences could extend criminal liability into civil realms, stripping individuals of and upon , making a direct guilty particularly perilous for those with significant assets. The plea's conceptual basis lay in providing a tacit submission to punishment—often a fine—while preserving the defendant's ability to deny the underlying facts in related civil actions, as articulated in early treatises like William Lambard's Eirenarcha (1599). First documented during the reign of Henry IV (1399–1413), around 1407–1409, the plea appeared in the Year Books as an "implied confession" for non-capital offenses, where defendants yielded to the Crown's mercy without a formal admission. A classic formulation comes from William Hawkins' A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (8th ed., 1824), describing it as a scenario "where a defendant... doth not directly own himself guilty, but in a manner admits it by yielding to the King’s mercy, and desiring to submit to a small fine." An illustrative early application occurred in Rex v. Williams (1686), where the defendant used the plea to accept a fine without risking broader civil repercussions from an assault charge. Similarly, in The Queen v. Templeman (1702), Chief Justice Holt accepted the plea in a non-capital assault case, emphasizing its distinction from an express confession to shield the defendant from estoppel in civil trespass suits. Despite its niche role, the plea faced inherent limitations under : it applied exclusively to non-capital felonies or misdemeanors, required judicial discretion for acceptance, and could not compel a if rejected, forcing a instead. By the mid-18th century, it had become rarely invoked, eclipsed by the rigid guilty/not guilty that dominated and reduced opportunities for implied submissions. No recorded uses occurred after 1702, and by the , the plea had effectively vanished from English practice amid procedural reforms that standardized pleas and , rendering it obsolete in the jurisdiction of its birth. This English tradition nonetheless laid the groundwork for the plea's later adaptation across the Atlantic.

Adoption in American Jurisprudence

The nolo contendere plea, rooted in English , began to appear in American courts during the as colonial legal practices evolved into independent state systems. Early adoption occurred in state jurisdictions, with references in courts demonstrating its discussion in criminal proceedings to avoid formal admissions of guilt while submitting to punishment. One of the earliest documented instances was in North Carolina's State v. Oxendine (1837), where a defendant's submission to the court was treated as an implied confession akin to nolo contendere, limited to the criminal case. Federal recognition of the plea emerged later in the . The earliest documented federal case, United States v. Hartwell (1869), addressed a nolo contendere plea in a criminal matter, holding that it carried the same procedural effect as a guilty plea for sentencing purposes within the criminal proceeding, though without broader evidentiary implications. This endorsement laid groundwork for appellate acceptance, though initial limitations persisted. In Tucker v. (1912), the Seventh of Appeals restricted the plea to misdemeanors punishable only by fines, viewing it as incompatible with felonies involving imprisonment under principles. The Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. United States (1926) marked a pivotal expansion, overruling Tucker and affirming federal courts' discretion to accept nolo contendere pleas in cases, including those warranting . The Court emphasized the plea's utility in resolving cases efficiently while preserving its non-admissive nature. This ruling facilitated broader use, further clarified in United States v. Norris (1930), which confirmed that the plea does not constitute an admission usable in subsequent civil actions. Standardization arrived in the mid-20th century through the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, promulgated by the in 1944 and effective in 1946. Rule 11 explicitly authorized defendants to plead not guilty, guilty, or—with the court's consent—nolo contendere, integrating the plea into federal practice and requiring judicial inquiry into its voluntariness. This codification promoted uniformity, allowing the plea in both and prosecutions subject to prosecutorial and judicial approval.

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal proceedings, a nolo contendere plea requires a formal colloquy to ensure the defendant's plea is voluntary and intelligent, mirroring the safeguards established for guilty pleas in Boykin v. Alabama (1969), where the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that courts verify defendants understand the consequences of waiving trial rights. Under , the judge must personally address the defendant in open court, informing them of the charges, potential penalties, and rights forfeited, such as the right to a and to confront witnesses, before acceptance. This process confirms the plea is not coerced and that the defendant comprehends its implications, though it does not involve an admission of factual guilt. Upon acceptance, a nolo contendere results in a equivalent to a guilty for sentencing purposes, subjecting the defendant to the full range of punishments authorized by without proceeding to . Unlike a guilty , however, federal courts do not require a factual basis beyond the prosecutor's agreement to the charges, as Rule 11(b)(3) explicitly mandates such a determination only for guilty . Sentencing proceeds based on the offense's statutory penalties, guidelines, and any plea agreement, often leading to outcomes similar to those from guilty . Courts exercise in accepting nolo contendere pleas, requiring the of the , which must consider the parties' views and whether acceptance serves the in effective administration. Rejection may occur if the plea appears to undermine accountability or if prosecutors oppose it due to evidentiary concerns, ensuring the plea aligns with broader case objectives. Nolo contendere pleas are more prevalent in U.S. misdemeanor cases, such as traffic offenses, where they allow quick resolution without admitting liability, compared to felonies, where they are rare. This usage reflects their utility in lower-stakes proceedings, avoiding trials while limiting admissions that could impact related civil matters.

Civil and Collateral Consequences

A plea of nolo contendere provides significant protection in civil proceedings by rendering the plea itself inadmissible as evidence of guilt or liability in any subsequent civil lawsuit arising from the same underlying facts. For instance, if a defendant enters such a plea to a driving under the influence charge, the plea cannot be introduced in a related civil action for personal injury damages to prove fault or negligence. This safeguard stems from Federal Rule of Evidence 410, which explicitly prohibits the use of a nolo contendere plea against the defendant in civil cases, thereby preventing the criminal proceeding from directly influencing civil liability determinations. Despite these protections, exceptions exist where evidence related to the plea or resulting conviction may be admissible. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, a conviction obtained via a nolo contendere plea can be used to impeach a witness's in a civil if the involved or , or if it was punishable by more than one year of imprisonment and the probative value outweighs potential prejudice. Additionally, in professional licensing proceedings, such as those before medical or bar associations, the may be considered as a factor in disciplinary actions, even though the plea itself does not constitute an admission of guilt. These limited uses ensure that while the plea avoids broad civil repercussions, it does not entirely shield the individual from accountability in or regulatory contexts. The also circumvents in civil litigation, meaning the facts established in the criminal case do not preclude relitigation of those issues in a civil forum, unlike a guilty which may bind the parties to the admission. This distinction preserves the defendant's ability to contest civil claims without the criminal resolution foreclosing defenses. Historically, this framework originated in English as a merciful alternative in non-capital cases, allowing submission to without a formal admission that could expose the defendant to amplified civil penalties, akin to mitigating self-incrimination risks in overlapping proceedings. In sentencing, state courts may vary slightly in how they weigh these civil protections, but the core evidentiary bar remains consistent federally.

Plea Comparisons

Versus Guilty Plea

A plea of nolo contendere differs fundamentally from a plea in its treatment of the 's admission of guilt. In a plea, the explicitly acknowledges the truth of the facts alleged in the or and concedes criminal liability, thereby waiving the right to contest those elements at . By contrast, a nolo contendere plea involves no such admission; the neither affirms nor denies responsibility for the charged conduct but simply declines to contest the prosecution's case, allowing the court to proceed as if guilt had been established. This distinction preserves the 's position that the facts may not constitute an admission usable beyond the criminal proceeding. The evidentiary implications of these pleas diverge most notably in civil proceedings. A guilty , once accepted and resulting in a , serves as an admission of guilt that can be introduced as against the in related civil litigation, such as suits for arising from the same conduct. In contrast, a nolo contendere is generally inadmissible in civil actions as an admission of fault, providing broader protection against or direct evidentiary use in subsequent lawsuits. This shield stems from federal rules excluding nolo pleas and related statements from civil admissibility, except in limited circumstances like prosecutions, thereby limiting the plea's ripple effects into non-criminal forums. Both pleas are subject to stringent standards for withdrawal and , though guilty pleas undergo more rigorous scrutiny for voluntariness. Under federal procedure, a may withdraw either before acceptance without cause, but post-acceptance withdrawal before sentencing requires a "fair and just reason," such as ineffective assistance or new , with courts exercising to prevent to the prosecution. After sentencing, withdrawal is unavailable except through direct or collateral attack, such as under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, guilty pleas face heightened constitutional oversight from Boykin v. Alabama, which mandates a record affirmatively showing the 's understanding of waived rights (e.g., , , ) and voluntary , rendering non-compliant pleas presumptively invalid on . Nolo contendere pleas receive analogous treatment in federal courts but may not trigger the identical Boykin presumption in all jurisdictions, though courts must still ensure voluntariness by personal colloquy. Strategically, defendants opt for a guilty plea when seeking benefits like substantial assistance credits under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1, where explicit cooperation and factual admissions can lead to sentence reductions in exchange for aiding investigations. Conversely, a nolo contendere plea is favored in cases with high civil exposure, particularly corporate or regulatory offenses, as it allows resolution of criminal charges without generating admissions that could fuel suits, administrative penalties, or private litigation. For instance, in antitrust prosecutions, corporations have historically used nolo pleas to mitigate broader liability while accepting fines, avoiding the evidentiary weight of a full guilty admission in parallel civil enforcement actions.

Versus Alford Plea

The , established by the U.S. Supreme Court in , 400 U.S. 25 (1970), permits a to enter a guilty plea while simultaneously maintaining their innocence, provided the plea is voluntary and supported by strong evidence of guilt. In that case, Henry Alford faced a first-degree charge carrying a potential death penalty and chose to plead guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the risk of , despite protesting his innocence; the Court upheld this as constitutionally valid, emphasizing that such pleas allow defendants to accept conviction benefits without a full trial when factual circumstances demonstrate guilt. This mechanism contrasts with the nolo contendere plea, which does not involve any admission or denial of guilt but simply expresses unwillingness to contest the charges. A fundamental distinction lies in the defendant's stance toward guilt: the nolo contendere plea implies no contest to the criminal allegations without asserting innocence, functioning as a pragmatic acceptance of punishment to resolve the case efficiently, whereas the Alford plea explicitly preserves a claim of innocence on the record for potential future use, such as in appeals or collateral proceedings. Unlike nolo contendere, which avoids any formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing and thus limits its evidentiary value in related civil matters, the Alford plea is a formal guilty plea that may be admissible as an admission in civil litigation, though it includes the innocence protestation to mitigate broader reputational harm. In practice, Alford pleas are frequently employed in scenarios where overwhelming evidence makes unlikely, enabling defendants to negotiate reduced sentences or avoid trials while protecting their public assertion of innocence, as seen in high-profile cases involving public figures seeking to minimize long-term professional repercussions. Conversely, nolo contendere pleas are more commonly utilized when defendants aim to shield against civil liabilities arising from the same incident, such as in traffic offenses or minor crimes where parallel lawsuits for damages could follow a criminal . Both pleas receive equivalent judicial treatment to guilty pleas during criminal sentencing, resulting in and the imposition of penalties without the need for a on the merits, but Alford pleas demand a heightened judicial into the factual basis for guilt to ensure the plea is not coerced or uninformed. Courts accepting Alford pleas must affirmatively find substantial evidence supporting the charge, as required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, whereas nolo contendere pleas typically require less evidentiary scrutiny since they do not involve a guilt admission. This procedural rigor in Alford cases underscores their role as a safeguard against involuntary pleas amid strong prosecutorial cases.

Usage in the United States

Federal Application

In federal criminal proceedings, a plea of nolo contendere is governed by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which permits such a plea only with the consent of the court. Before accepting the plea, the court must address the defendant personally in open court to ensure it is voluntary and not the result of force, threats, or promises other than those in a plea agreement. The court is also required to advise the defendant of the rights waived by the plea, including the right to a jury trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to compel attendance of witnesses, to remain silent, and to introduce evidence; additionally, the court must inform the defendant of the nature of the charge, the maximum possible penalties (such as imprisonment, fines, and supervised release), any applicable mandatory minimum penalties, and other consequences like restitution, forfeiture, or immigration impacts. Although Department of Justice policy directs United States Attorneys not to agree to nolo contendere pleas except in the most unusual circumstances—and only after obtaining prior approval from the Assistant Attorney General responsible for the relevant division, or higher authority such as the Associate Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Attorney General—the rule does not mandate prosecutorial consent, though the court must consider the parties' views and the public interest. These stringent requirements reflect broader limitations on nolo contendere pleas in federal practice, where they are considered rare and generally disfavored to preserve the integrity of criminal prosecutions and public confidence in the judicial process. Department of Justice guidelines explicitly instruct prosecutors to oppose such pleas unless compelling reasons demonstrate that acceptance serves the public interest, such as avoiding prolonged litigation in cases where evidence of guilt is overwhelming but civil implications warrant caution. Requests for approval must be submitted through the Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit, detailing the case facts, charges, proposed plea terms, and justifying circumstances, underscoring the oversight designed to prevent erosion of deterrence in serious offenses. Although not explicitly barred for felonies, the policy's emphasis on "unusual circumstances" effectively restricts their use in felony prosecutions, which typically involve greater public interest and evidentiary demands. One key advantage of the nolo contendere plea in federal courts is its evidentiary inadmissibility in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings against the , as codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 410, which excludes evidence of the plea, related statements, or withdrawn pleas to protect against collateral use. This protection is particularly significant in contexts like antitrust violations, where nolo contendere pleas have historically been more commonly accepted for minor or corporate offenses to facilitate resolution without providing admissions usable in follow-on civil treble-damages suits under the Clayton Act. For instance, in antitrust enforcement, the Department of Justice has occasionally consented to such pleas when the criminal case aligns closely with parallel civil actions, allowing punishment without prejudicing private litigants' ability to prove liability independently. Overall, these federal applications prioritize procedural safeguards and to balance efficiency with the need for accountability.

State Variations Overview

The nolo contendere plea is permitted in the majority of U.S. states and the District of Columbia, though it is prohibited or severely restricted in a small number of jurisdictions, particularly for offenses—for example, prohibited in for all cases and restricted to s in and . Common restrictions include limitations to cases in many states, requirements for explicit consent from the court and often the prosecution before acceptance, and treatment equivalent to a guilty plea for sentencing and certain collateral purposes in some jurisdictions. Trends show growing utilization of the in violations and regulatory offenses, where defendants seek to avoid admissions that could trigger civil liabilities. State approaches to civil admissibility vary, with some permitting limited evidentiary use in related civil suits while others bar it entirely to preserve the plea's protective function. According to data, plea bargains—including nolo contendere options—resolve 90 to 95 percent of criminal convictions in state s, underscoring their role in case dispositions despite jurisdictional differences.

Alaska

In , the nolo contendere is broadly permitted under Rule of 11(a), allowing defendants to enter such a in all criminal cases, including misdemeanors and felonies, without specific restrictions on charge severity. In contrast to federal practice, where prosecutorial opposition is common under DOJ but not required for acceptance, Rule 11 emphasizes judicial determination of voluntariness and factual basis without an explicit prosecutorial veto over the plea type itself. The has discretion to accept the after ensuring it is voluntary through personal colloquy, confirming awareness of waived rights (such as trial and appeal) and potential consequences like sentencing and registration requirements. For sentencing purposes, a nolo contendere is treated equivalently to a guilty , yet it offers protections against collateral use. also permits Alford pleas as an alternative, maintaining flexibility in non-admission options. On civil effects, the nolo contendere plea itself is inadmissible as an admission of guilt in subsequent civil proceedings under Evidence Rule 410, providing defendants insulation from using the plea as evidence of liability. However, the resulting conviction may be admissible for purposes like under Evidence Rule 609 or to establish in limited scenarios, as clarified in Lamb v. Anderson, where the court applied issue preclusion between the same parties but preserved the plea's non-admissive core. Nolo contendere pleas are notably common in for minor regulatory offenses, particularly and violations under Title 16 of the Alaska Statutes, where defendants often seek to avoid admitting fault that could trigger civil claims related to property or environmental damage. For instance, in licensing contexts for guides and outfitters, such pleas are treated as convictions for enforcement but do not estop civil defenses. A key example affirming these protections is Pletnikoff v. Johnson, where the upheld the 's availability in a context, rejecting attempts to equate it fully with a guilty for collateral purposes and reinforcing its role in promoting efficient resolutions without broad civil repercussions. This approach contrasts with federal practice by imposing fewer barriers, allowing greater use in state proceedings to balance prosecutorial interests with individual rights. Cases like Miller v. State illustrate limits on rejecting previously accepted pleas but do not mandate initial acceptance.

California

In California, a plea of nolo contendere, also known as a no contest plea, is explicitly defined under Penal Code § 1016 as an agreement by the not to contest the charge, without constituting an admission of guilt. This plea carries the same legal effect as a guilty plea in the criminal proceedings, including sentencing and records, but it cannot be used against the defendant as an admission in any civil suit arising from the same underlying act. However, for professional licensing purposes, a nolo contendere plea is treated as a under the Business and Professions Code, requiring disclosure to relevant boards, such as those for medical professionals under § 2236 or attorneys under State Bar rules, which may lead to disciplinary actions. The entry of a nolo contendere plea in is subject to specific procedural restrictions to ensure its validity and appropriateness. The must approve the plea, and it must be explicitly stated on the record as such, distinguishing it from other pleas. Additionally, under Penal Code § 1192.5, the is required to inquire into the factual basis for the plea, confirming that there is sufficient to support the charge before , thereby safeguarding against involuntary or uninformed submissions. In cases involving , while nolo contendere pleas are permissible, they trigger significant collateral limitations, such as a rebuttable against awarding spousal support to the pleading party under Family Code § 4320(i), treating the plea equivalently to a guilty finding for purposes. Nolo contendere pleas are particularly common in traffic infraction cases in , where defendants often enter them to resolve citations without formally admitting fault, potentially mitigating civil liabilities like increased rates. Regarding voluntariness, courts emphasize that such pleas must be knowing and intelligent, as affirmed in seminal rulings like People v. Thomas (1978), which underscored the need for full advisement to prevent challenges on appeal. A distinctive federal overlay applies to immigration consequences: under U.S. , a nolo contendere plea is automatically considered a equivalent to a guilty , potentially leading to deportability or inadmissibility regardless of state protections.

Florida

In Florida, the nolo contendere plea is regulated under Florida Rule of 3.172, which mandates that the trial verify the plea's voluntariness, establish a factual basis, and ensure the understands the charge, potential penalties, and waived rights before acceptance. The must also advise the of key consequences, including the plea's equivalence to a guilty plea for sentencing purposes, potential impacts, and the risk of civil commitment for sexually violent offenses. Unlike a guilty plea, however, a nolo contendere plea does not constitute an admission of guilt admissible in subsequent civil proceedings, providing limited protection against collateral civil liability. Florida applies the nolo contendere restrictively, primarily to misdemeanors and specified non-capital , with consent required for acceptance in cases to ensure it aligns with and case specifics. It is prohibited in capital cases, as established in Smith v. State, where the Supreme held the inappropriate due to the severity of potential penalties and the need for a clear record in death-eligible prosecutions. This limitation underscores 's cautious approach, confining the to less serious offenses to balance interests with prosecutorial and judicial oversight. The is prevalent in non-serious matters like (DUI) and petty , where defendants seek to resolve charges without admitting fault. In DUI cases, a nolo contendere results in conviction-level penalties, including suspension and fines, but cannot be withheld under Statute § 316.193. For petty under § 812.014, a first-degree , the allows quick disposition, often paired with diversion programs for first-time offenders. A distinctive collateral benefit in is the option for withheld under § 948.01, enabling the to impose without a formal entry, which mitigates long-term repercussions like employment barriers—unlike in many states where nolo pleas carry full conviction weight regardless.

Michigan

In Michigan, a of nolo contendere is permitted under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 6.302, which governs the acceptance of both guilty and nolo contendere in criminal proceedings. The court may accept such a plea only if it determines that the plea is understanding, voluntary, and accurate, requiring the to waive the same constitutional rights as in a guilty plea, including the right to a , confrontation of witnesses, and protection against . Unlike in some jurisdictions, Michigan treats a nolo contendere plea as functionally equivalent to a guilty plea for all purposes, including sentencing, records, and collateral consequences. Under Compiled Laws (MCL) 767.37, acceptance of a nolo contendere allows the court to proceed in the same manner as upon a guilty , entering a judgment of conviction without requiring an explicit admission of guilt. This equivalence extends to civil proceedings, where Rule of (MRE) 410 permits evidence of a nolo contendere to be admitted to the same extent as a guilty , such as in defenses against related civil claims. Consequently, the provides no special protections against civil admissibility or other non-criminal repercussions, diminishing its strategic utility compared to a guilty . Due to this lack of distinction in recordation and consequences, nolo contendere pleas are used sparingly in , typically only in limited circumstances such as when the defendant cannot recall events due to intoxication or to avoid formal admissions in highly technical cases. The requirement for court consent further restricts its application, ensuring it aligns closely with guilty plea procedures without offering unique benefits.

South Carolina

In South Carolina, a of nolo contendere is statutorily permitted only in cases, requiring the of the for acceptance. Upon entry, the plea is treated equivalently to a guilty plea for purposes of sentencing and conviction, resulting in the same penalties and implications. However, unlike a guilty plea, a nolo contendere plea cannot be used as an admission of liability or the truth of the underlying facts in any subsequent civil proceeding arising from the same conduct. The court's discretion in accepting a nolo contendere is substantial, as explicit is mandated by , allowing judges to deny it based on case-specific factors such as the nature of the offense or considerations. This high level of judicial oversight contributes to the plea's limited use, which is generally confined to minor, non-violent , including regulatory or traffic-related violations where avoiding an admission of guilt may protect against civil repercussions. Nolo pleas are rare in more serious misdemeanor contexts due to this discretionary barrier. Despite its non-admissive nature, a nolo contendere plea carries full collateral consequences akin to a conviction, including potential ineligibility for certain licenses or employment and mandatory sex offender registration if the underlying offense qualifies under state law. For instance, individuals pleading nolo contendere to registrable sex offenses must comply with the South Carolina Sex Offender Registry Act, regardless of the plea's limited evidentiary value in civil matters.

Texas

In Texas, a nolo contendere , often referred to as a "no contest" plea, permits a to accept the imposition of a criminal penalty without formally admitting guilt for the charged offense. This plea is authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it is treated equivalently to a guilty plea for purposes of conviction and sentencing but carries distinct implications for collateral proceedings. Specifically, Article 1.15 governs its use in felony cases, requiring the defendant's personal waiver of a jury trial in open court and the prosecutor's consent to proceed on stipulated evidence or agreed facts, ensuring no conviction occurs without judicial oversight. The is most commonly employed in minor offenses, particularly Class C misdemeanors such as violations, where it allows s to resolve cases efficiently without the charges. In these scenarios, the plea may be entered by the or their in open under Article 27.19, often leading to fines or without a full . For felonies, its application is more restricted, necessitating the evidentiary stipulations outlined in Article 1.15 to support the 's finding of guilt, which limits its use to cases where both parties agree on the underlying facts. This procedural framework makes nolo contendere prevalent in s across municipalities, where it facilitates quick dispositions for infractions like speeding or minor collisions. A key advantage in is that a nolo contendere plea does not constitute an admission of and is inadmissible against the in any related civil , protecting against its use as of fault in claims. This protection stems from Texas Rule of 410, which explicitly bars such pleas from civil proceedings unless withdrawn or part of a broader evidentiary context requiring fairness. Furthermore, the plea can serve as the foundation for under Chapter 42A of the Code of , where the court withholds a formal , imposes community supervision, and dismisses the case upon successful completion, avoiding a permanent . This option is particularly valuable in eligible and certain cases, emphasizing Texas's practical emphasis on rehabilitation for non-violent offenses.

Virginia

In Virginia, a nolo contendere plea is permitted across all criminal offenses, including both misdemeanors and felonies, establishing a permissive framework that applies uniformly without restriction to offense type. Under Virginia Code § 19.2-254, an accused may plead not guilty, guilty, or at , and the shall not refuse to accept a nolo contendere plea, even to a lesser included offense—distinguishing it from guilty pleas, which the court may reject in such circumstances. This statutory allowance reflects 's broad acceptance of the plea as a means to resolve cases without an admission of guilt, subject only to judicial discretion in sentencing. The procedures for entering a nolo contendere plea emphasize voluntariness and informed consent but do not require a factual basis, as the plea does not constitute an admission of the offense. In circuit courts handling felonies, Virginia Supreme Court Rule 3A:8(b) mandates that the court refrain from accepting the plea until determining it is made voluntarily, with the defendant understanding the nature of the charge and the consequences, including the rights waived such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination. The court must conduct a colloquy to confirm this understanding, but unlike some guilty pleas, no independent evidence of guilt is needed, preserving the plea's non-admissive character for collateral purposes. For misdemeanors in general district courts, similar principles apply under Code § 19.2-254, with the court ensuring comprehension without a formal factual proffer. Nolo contendere pleas are commonly utilized in for property and person offenses like and , where defendants seek to avoid admissions that could impact civil liability, though the plea's admissibility in related civil actions limits this benefit. For instance, in first-offense simple assault and battery cases against family or household members, defendants often enter nolo contendere pleas as part of a deferral program under Code § 18.2-57.3, allowing dismissal upon compliance with conditions like counseling, provided the court finds sufficient evidence but no admission is required. In prosecutions, the plea facilitates resolution without contesting evidence, as seen in employment-related decisions where such pleas to grand larceny have been upheld for purposes without implying civil fault. Virginia's approach is broader than the federal system, where nolo contendere pleas are typically confined to misdemeanors or require Department of Justice approval for consent in felonies, but Virginia provides comparatively weaker collateral protections due to the plea's admissibility in civil suits arising from the same conduct. Pursuant to Code § 8.01-418, records of a nolo contendere plea are admissible in civil actions to prove the underlying facts, treating it equivalently to a guilty plea for evidentiary purposes in related proceedings—contrasting with federal Rule of Evidence 410, which excludes it. This framework balances efficiency in criminal resolutions with limited shielding from civil consequences, differing from guilty pleas that offer no such evidentiary nuance.

Usage in Other Common Law Jurisdictions

United Kingdom

In the , the plea of nolo contendere is not recognized under modern , with defendants limited to entering pleas of either guilty or not guilty as prescribed by the Rules 2020. This binary system ensures that any conviction arises from an explicit admission of guilt or a determination by the following a , promoting and clarity in proceedings. The absence of a nolo contendere option reflects a deliberate departure from historical practices, as the plea, while originating in English as early as 1401, gradually fell into disuse by the nineteenth century amid growing judicial skepticism toward its implications for evading full admissions. Historically, the nolo contendere plea was employed sporadically in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a means to accept punishment without formally contesting the charges, but English courts increasingly viewed it with suspicion due to its potential to undermine the integrity of criminal proceedings. By the nineteenth century, reforms in criminal procedure emphasized straightforward guilty or not guilty pleas to enhance procedural efficiency and ensure defendants fully confronted the charges, leading to the plea's effective abandonment in UK jurisprudence. This evolution contrasted with its retention and adaptation in the United States, where it persisted as a distinct option. In contemporary practice, functional equivalents to nolo contendere are absent, but defendants entering guilty may submit a written basis of to outline their version of events, which the court considers during sentencing if it differs from the prosecution's account. This mechanism allows for nuanced factual presentations without admitting all elements alleged, though it still constitutes a full guilty . bargaining occurs indirectly through statutory sentence discounts, where an early guilty can reduce the sentence by up to one-third, incentivizing resolutions while requiring an admission of guilt to avoid . These discounts apply uniformly across and magistrates' courts, balancing efficiency with the need for explicit accountability.

Canada and Australia

In Canada, the plea of nolo contendere is not formally recognized under the Criminal Code, which limits pleas to guilty or not guilty in criminal proceedings. This binary structure reflects the system's emphasis on clear admissions to ensure procedural fairness and protect the accused's trial rights. Although jurisprudence indicates that similar procedures to a "no contest" plea may be accepted in limited provincial court contexts, such as bylaw infractions or minor regulatory offenses, provided they are not labeled as nolo contendere, such pleas are treated as equivalent to a guilty plea, carrying the same sentencing consequences without mitigating civil liability implications. In , nolo contendere is absent from federal and state criminal codes, with traditions maintaining a strict binary of guilty or not guilty pleas. While theoretically available under historical , Australian courts rarely, if ever, accept it, prioritizing explicit admissions to uphold the integrity of convictions. In certain regulatory matters, particularly under provisions like those in , variants such as a "guilty without admission of guilt" may arise in non-criminal or hybrid offenses, allowing resolution without full factual concession, though these are confined to administrative or contexts rather than core criminal trials. Both jurisdictions share trends favoring full admissions in guilty pleas to facilitate sentencing, with plea negotiations often structured around statutory or guideline-based discounts—typically 25% reduction in for early pleas and similar judicial discretion in —to incentivize resolutions without trials. This approach stems from common law heritage influenced by the , emphasizing transparency and the accused's informed of . Unlike in the United States, public policy in and more rigorously opposes non-admission pleas to safeguard against coerced resolutions and preserve the evidentiary basis for punishment.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nolo_contendere
  2. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1958&context=mlr
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11
  4. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/how-does-guilty-differ-from-no-contest/
  5. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/GetStatute.aspx?Code=CR&Value=27.19
  6. https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/categories/resources/glossary.html
  7. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-623-pleas-federal-rule-criminal-procedure-11
  8. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-16000-pleas-federal-rule-criminal-procedure-11
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/451
  10. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nolo_contendere
  11. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5765&context=nclr
  12. https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/no-contest
  13. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/13171/74_51YaleLJ1255_1941_1942_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3157&context=nlr
  15. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llmlp/PrinciplesofCriminalPleading/PrinciplesofCriminalPleading.pdf
  16. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3585&context=law-review
  17. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/451/
  18. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/238/
  19. https://www.federalrulesofcriminalprocedure.org/title-iv/rule-11-pleas/
  20. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410
  21. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3452&context=mulr
  22. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609
  23. https://www.justia.com/criminal/plea-bargains/no-contest-pleas-conditional-pleas-and-alford-pleas/
  24. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2929&context=clr
  25. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/400/25/
  26. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/400/25
  27. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alford_plea
  28. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/north-carolina-v-alford
  29. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/nolo-contendere
  30. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-pleading-guilty-contest.html
  31. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/pleabargainingresearchsummary.pdf
  32. https://courts.alaska.gov/rules/docs/crpro.pdf
  33. https://courts.alaska.gov/rules/docs/ev.pdf
  34. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1385547.html
  35. https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/5/pub/bgcsstatutes.pdf
  36. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-12/2026-akm-prospectus.pdf
  37. https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1988/s-2269-1.html
  38. https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1980/617-p2d-516.html
  39. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1016/
  40. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/business-and-professions-code/bpc-sect-2236/
  41. https://www.bar.ca.gov/convictions
  42. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1192-5/
  43. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/family-code/fam-sect-4320/
  44. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/no-contest-pleas/
  45. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/84/281.html
  46. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2
  47. https://www.joshi-law.com/frequently-asked-questions-about-no-contest-pleas-in-florida-criminal-cases/
  48. https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1967/35574-0.html
  49. https://www.jaxcriminaldefenseattorney.com/plead-guilty-nolo-contendere-dui-charge/
  50. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.193.html
  51. https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjstc/professional-compliance/pc-violations-and-penalties
  52. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/withhold-of-adjudication-what-everyone-needs-to-know/
  53. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/michigan-court-rules/court-rules-book-ch-6-responsive-html5.zip/index.html
  54. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a52b3/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/dcmm/dcmmresponsivehtml5.zip/DCMM/Ch_5_Pleas_and_Sentencing/Guilty_and_Nolo_Contendere_Pleas.htm
  55. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-767-37
  56. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a9798/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/rules-of-evidence/michigan-rules-of-evidence.pdf
  57. https://www.icle.org/newsletter/sample/2009505660.pdf
  58. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/493410/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/criminal/crimpttresponsivehtml5.zip/Crim_PTT/Ch_6_Pleas/Guilty_Pleas_and_Nolo_Contendere_Pleas.htm
  59. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t17c023.php
  60. https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-17/chapter-23/section-17-23-40/
  61. https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1976/20265-1.html
  62. https://seiferflatowlaw.com/understanding-plea-options-in-south-carolina-criminal-cases/
  63. https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-23/chapter-3/section-23-3-430/
  64. https://www.victoriatx.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=117
  65. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.42A.htm
  66. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter15/section19.2-254/
  67. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-57.3/
  68. https://www.vec.virginia.gov/vecportal/unins/decisions/pdf/Section04/30609hogan.pdf
  69. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter14/section8.01-418/
  70. https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims-guide/victims-guide-magistrates-court-plea-hearings
  71. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-acceptance-of-pleas-and-the-prosecutors-role-in-the-sentencing-exercise
  72. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/reduction-in-sentence-for-a-guilty-plea-first-hearing-on-or-after-1-june-2017/
  73. https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/sentencing-overview-general-principles-and-mandatory-custodial-sentences
  74. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-606.html
  75. https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1745615/is-a-plea-of-nolo-contendere-available-in-canada
  76. https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/1972/7.pdf
  77. https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/nsw/guilty-no-conviction/
  78. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3636&context=wmlr
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.