Name |
Used |
Note |
Alabama |
Yes |
"With an Alford plea, [defendant] maintained his innocence but acknowledged there was enough evidence to convict him." Associated Press (2002)[18] |
Alaska |
Yes |
"In such a plea, the defendant does not admit guilt, but acknowledges that prosecutors have enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict." Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (2009)[19] |
Arizona |
Yes |
"Alford plea, in which a defendant does not admit guilt but agrees he might be convicted by a jury." The Arizona Daily Star (2003)[20] "Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges the prosecution has enough evidence to obtain a conviction." The Arizona Daily Star (1999)[21] |
Arkansas |
Yes |
"Under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a court may accept a guilty plea from a defendant who maintains his innocence, provided the court finds an adequate factual basis for the plea of guilty. Typically, a criminal defendant will utilize an Alford plea when he "intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea" in light of strong evidence of actual guilt with the intention of limiting the penalty to be imposed." Arkansas Supreme Court (2006)[22] |
California |
Yes |
Alford plea described as a "plea that allows the offender to admit that there is enough evidence to convict him at trial without admitting the offense of record." California State Library, research requested by California State Assembly member (2004)[23] |
Colorado |
Yes |
"[Defendant] took an Alford plea, which means he didn't admit guilt but agreed that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him." The Gazette (2007)[24] "[Defendant] entered an 'Alford plea' ... under which he did not admit guilt but acknowledged that enough evidence exists to convict him." Rocky Mountain News (2006)[25] |
Connecticut |
Yes |
"A plea in a criminal case in which the defendant does not admit guilt, but agrees that the state has enough evidence against him or her to get a conviction. Allows the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with the state. If the judge accepts the Alford Plea, a guilty finding is made on the record." State of Connecticut Judicial Branch (2009)[26] |
Delaware |
Yes |
"We now hold, in the light of the Alford case, that the rules laid down in Brown and Muzzi are amended to eliminate the requirement that a defendant must admit his actual commission of the offense charged in order for the trial Judge to accept his plea; if the other requirements laid down in Brown and Muzzi are met, the plea is to be accepted." Supreme Court of Delaware (1972)[27] |
Florida |
Yes |
Supreme Court of Florida has held that "a judgment of guilt entered upon an Alford plea is conclusive proof of guilt of the criminal offense charged". The Florida Bar v. Cohen (1991)[28] Florida “allows for pleas of convenience as provided in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).”[29] Rule 3.172(e), Fla. R. Crim. P. (Committee Note). |
Georgia |
Yes |
"[Defendant] entered an 'Alford plea,' in which he acknowledged there was enough evidence to find him guilty." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2006)[30] "[Defendant] entered an 'Alford' plea, in which a defendant does not admit guilt but asserts that a guilty plea is in his best interest." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2004)[31] |
Hawaii |
Yes |
"While the Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea may be accepted by the trial court, and sentence may be pronounced thereon even where the defendant is unable or unwilling to admit to the commission of the act charged, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), we think that where a tendered plea of guilty is accompanied by a contemporaneous denial of the acts constituting the crime charged, a searching inquiry addressed to the defendant personally, to ensure the defendant's complete understanding of the finality of his guilty plea if accepted, should be conducted by the trial court before accepting the plea. Only then, and only after satisfying itself that there is a strong factual basis for the plea, ought the trial court to accept the plea." Supreme Court of Hawaii (1980)[32] |
Idaho |
Yes |
"Although an Alford plea allows a defendant to plead guilty amid assertions of innocence, it does not require a court to accept those assertions. The sentencing court may, of necessity, consider a broad range of information, including the evidence of the crime, the defendant's criminal history and the demeanor of the defendant, including the presence or absence of remorse." Idaho Court of Appeals, State of Idaho v. Howry (1995)[33] |
Illinois |
Yes |
"Alford plea, in which [defendant] conceded that a judge or jury shown the evidence would probably find him guilty". Chicago Tribune (2008)[34] "Alford plea – under which a defendant acknowledges there is enough evidence for a conviction without admitting wrongdoing." The Chicago Sun-Times (2006)[35] |
Indiana |
No |
"The Supreme Court of Indiana has held that judges may not accept guilty pleas accompanied by protestations of innocence. The court suggested that Alford pleas risk being unintelligent, involuntary, and inaccurate. Another reason for the Indiana rule is that Alford pleas undercut public respect for the justice system." Cornell Law Review (2003)[10] |
Iowa |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, a defendant doesn't admit guilt but acknowledges there is enough evidence for a jury to convict him." Associated Press (2009)[36] "In an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt, but acknowledges that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him at trial." Associated Press (2002)[37] |
Kansas |
Yes |
"An Alford plea is a plea to a criminal charge but without admitting to its commission, i.e., to the truth of the charge and every material fact therein. The defendant may accomplish this in two ways: by affirmatively protesting innocence or by simply refusing to admit the acts constituting the charge."[38] |
Kentucky |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, a defendant doesn't admit guilt but acknowledges there is enough evidence for a conviction." The Kentucky Post (2007)[39] "In an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but concedes there is enough evidence for conviction." Lexington Herald-Leader (2006)[40] |
Louisiana |
Yes |
"Under an Alford plea, a defendant maintains his innocence, but concedes he would likely be convicted if his case went to trial. The court treats the case as a guilty plea."The Advocate (1999)[41] "In an Alford plea, the defendant does not admit he committed a crime, but believes it is in his best interest to plead guilty." The Advocate (1999)[42] |
Maine |
Yes |
"Alford plea, which allows her to plead guilty to the state's evidence while continuing, for the record, to maintain her innocence." Bangor Daily News (1998)[43] "The defendants entered what is technically called an 'Alford plea,' in which they contend they are innocent, but admit that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find them guilty, and it is in their best interests to plead guilty." Bangor Daily News (1994)[44] |
Maryland |
Yes |
"Under an Alford plea, the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the state has enough evidence for a conviction." The Maryland Gazette (2007)[45] "Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not explicitly admit guilt but acknowledges prosecutors have enough evidence to convict." The Washington Post (1998)[46] |
Massachusetts |
Yes |
"[Defendant] invoked an Alford plea, which means he did not admit guilt but conceded prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him." The Republican (2001)[47] "He entered an Alford plea, a type of plea in which a defendant doesn't admit guilt, but consents to a prison sentence, acknowledging that the state has a strong case." Boston Herald (2000)[48] |
Michigan |
No |
Alford pleas have been forbidden in Michigan courts. Cornell Law Review (2003)[10] |
Minnesota |
Yes |
Alford plea "a form of a guilty plea in which the defendant asserts innocence but acknowledges on the record that the prosecutor could present enough evidence to prove guilt." Minnesota House of Representatives (2009)[49] "Alford Plea: A plea of guilty that may be accepted by a court even where the defendant does not admit guilt. In an Alford plea, defendant has to admit that he has reviewed the state's evidence, a reasonable jury could find him guilty, and he wants to take advantage of a plea offer that has been made. Court has discretion as to whether to accept this type of plea." Minnesota Judicial Branch (2009)[50] |
Mississippi |
Yes |
In an appeal from the Mississippi Court of Appeals, the appeals decision was reversed, and the acceptance of the defendant's Alford plea by the Lauderdale County Circuit Court was upheld. Supreme Court of Mississippi (2008)[51] |
Missouri |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges a likelihood of conviction if the case went to trial." The Kansas City Star (2009)[52] "Under the plea, the [defendant] did not admit guilt but acknowledged the state had enough evidence for a conviction." Associated Press (2008)[53] |
Montana |
Yes |
In an appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, a ruling denying defendant's motion to withdraw his Alford plea to the offense of felony robbery was affirmed. Montana Supreme Court (2008)[54] |
Nebraska |
Yes |
In an appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, a conviction and sentence of an individual who pleaded guilty by Alford plea was affirmed. Nebraska Court of Appeals (1993)[55] |
Nevada |
Yes |
"[Defendant] entered an Alford plea ... meaning she didn't admit wrongdoing but acknowledged there is enough evidence to convict her." Las Vegas Review-Journal (2009)[56] "[Defendant] entered an Alford plea, which means he didn't admit guilt but acknowledged there was enough evidence to find him guilty if he went to trial.Las Vegas Review-Journal (2008)[57] |
New Hampshire |
Yes |
"[Defendant entered] an Alford plea, meaning that she maintained her innocence but admitted the state had sufficient evidence to convince a judge or jury she was guilty." New Hampshire Union Leader (2009)[58] "By entering an 'Alford' plea, [defendant] conceded the prosecution probably would win the case, but he did not admit guilt." New Hampshire Union Leader (1994)[59] |
New Jersey |
No |
Alford pleas have been forbidden in New Jersey courts. Cornell Law Review (2003)[10] |
New Mexico |
Yes |
Alford plea defined as "a guilty plea entered by a defendant who simultaneously maintains his/her innocence and for purposes of these regulations is equivalent to a conviction." New Mexico Register (2001)[60] |
New York |
Yes |
"Such a plea is valid in New York State. ... In plea bargaining, the prosecutor has the right to make no plea offer. ... Thus, the prosecutor can refuse to accept an Alford as a plea to a lesser charge. However, where the defendant seeks to plead to the whole indictment via an Alford plea, the prosecutor has no right to stop this. A defendant has the right to plead to the entire accusatory instrument." Issues in NY Criminal Law (2008)[61] |
North Carolina |
Yes |
"With an Alford plea, the judge asks these two questions: 'Do you now consider it to be in your best interest to plead guilty?' and 'Do you understand that upon your 'Alford plea' you will be treated as being guilty whether or not you admit that you are in fact guilty?'" The News & Observer (2007)[62] "[Defendant] agreed as part of an Alford plea in state court that evidence against him could result in a conviction." Associated Press (2007)[63] |
North Dakota |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that sufficient evidence exists to convict." Grand Forks Herald (2006)[64] "Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt, but acknowledges there is enough evidence to convict her." Associated Press (1995)[65] |
Ohio |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, the defendant maintains innocence or does not admit committing a crime. The court treats it as a guilty plea." The Blade (2009)[66] "The Alford plea means [defendant] didn't admit guilt but acknowledged that enough evidence existed to convict him." Dayton Daily News (2008)[67] |
Oklahoma |
Yes |
"An Alford plea is not an admission of guilt. Rather, it is a recognition that enough evidence exists for a conviction." The Oklahoman (2009)[68] "By entering an Alford plea, the defendant does not admit guilt but concedes the evidence against him likely would cause a jury to convict him." Associated Press (2005)[69] |
Oregon |
Yes |
"An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant does not admit commission of the criminal act or asserts that he is innocent. In such a situation, the trial court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea." Oregon Court of Appeals (2005)[70] "Under the plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that there is enough evidence for a conviction." The Oregonian (2007)[71] |
Pennsylvania |
Yes |
"Under an Alford plea ... [defendant] did not admit guilt but acknowledged the government had sufficient evidence to convict him." The Philadelphia Inquirer (2008)[72] "[Defendant] entered the Alford plea, in which he did not admit guilt but acknowledged there was enough evidence to convict him". Bucks County Courier Times (2006)[73] |
Rhode Island |
Yes |
"In proceeding seeking post-conviction relief, record supported trial court's judgment that defendant's Alford plea was knowing and voluntary, and that defendant was present when trial court changed sentence from a fine to a fine plus incarceration." Rhode Island Supreme Court (2003)[74] |
South Carolina |
Yes |
A State Supreme Court case held that Alford guilty pleas were to be held valid in the absence of a specific on-the-record ruling that the pleas were voluntary – provided that the sentencing judge acted appropriately in accordance with the rules for acceptance of a plea made voluntarily by the defendant. The Court held that a ruling that the plea was entered into voluntarily is implied by the act of sentencing. South Carolina Supreme Court, State v. Gaines (1999)[75] |
South Dakota |
Yes |
"With the Alford plea, [defendant] maintains his innocence but concedes that if the evidence against him were to be presented to a jury or judge, he would probably be found guilty." Aberdeen American News (2003)[76] "Under the Alford plea, [defendant] concedes that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him ... but he does not admit to committing the crime." Aberdeen American News (2001)[77] |
Tennessee |
Yes |
"[Defendant] entered an Alford plea, or best-interests plea, in which he does not necessarily admit to the facts, but accepts the sentence rather than risk a trial. It has the same legal effect as a guilty plea." The Commercial Appeal (2006)[78] "[Defendant] entered an Alford plea ... which means he believes there is sufficient evidence to convict him but he does not admit guilt." Associated Press (2005)[79] |
Texas |
Yes |
"[Defendant] entered an 'Alford plea' - which allows her to claim no guilt but concede the state's overwhelming evidence against her". The Dallas Morning News (1998)[80] |
Utah |
Yes |
"This plea may be used when the defendant wants the advantage of a plea bargain, but cannot or will not admit guilt. Instead, the defendant pleads to avoid the potential consequences of going to trial, and pleads without admitting guilt." Utah State Courts (2009)[81] "[Alford] plea lets a defendant admit that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him but permits the individual to maintain his innocence." The Deseret News (2003)[82] |
Vermont |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea ... defendant does not admit a crime but acknowledges that the state has enough evidence to get a conviction." Associated Press (2006)[83] |
Virginia |
Yes |
"An Alford plea means that [defendant] does not admit guilt but concedes that the state has enough evidence to convict him." The Roanoke Times (2009)[84] "[Defendant] entered an Alford plea, not admitting guilt but conceding that the state had enough evidence to convict him." Richmond Times-Dispatch (2009)[85] "A defendant who has entered an Alford plea is not an innocent person for the purposes of criminal sentencing and probation. To mitigate the possibility that an innocent person will so plead, a factual basis is required supporting the finding of guilt before an Alford plea can be accepted." Court of Appeals of Virginia (2009)[86] |
Washington |
Yes |
Alford plea "treated the same as a guilty finding". Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (2008)[87] "Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges there is enough evidence for a conviction." The Seattle Times (2003)[88] |
West Virginia |
Yes |
"In an Alford plea, a person maintains his innocence but acknowledges the state has enough evidence to convict him." Charleston Gazette (2002)[89] Such a plea is called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia after a 1987 case in which the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia upheld the use of the Alford plea.[90] |
Wisconsin |
Yes |
"A defendant's protestations of innocence under an Alford plea extend only to the plea itself. Whatever the reason for entering an Alford plea, the fact remains that when defendants enter such a plea, they become convicted offenders and are treated no differently than they would be had they gone to trial and been convicted by a jury." Analysis of Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, Wisconsin Lawyer (1998)[91] In a 1995 case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the use of the Alford plea in the state.[92] |
Wyoming |
Yes |
"[Defendant] entered an 'Alford plea' to the charges ... The plea means that he didn't admit the crimes, but acknowledged that there's enough evidence to convict him." Associated Press (2009)[93] "[Defendant's] guilty plea is identified in the record as an Alford plea, i.e., a plea that allows an accused to voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime." Wyoming Supreme Court (2008)[94] |