ILNews

High court grants 2 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will rule on the issue of whether a defendant has to prove at a probation revocation hearing for failing to support dependents his or her inability to pay the support.

The high court granted transfer to Dannie Ray Runyon v. State of Indiana, No. 57S04-1006-CR-317 – one of two cases it took on transfer June 17.

Dannie Ray Runyon appealed the revocation of his probation and order that he serve 6 years of a previously suspended sentence for not paying child support, a violation of his probation. He argued the revocation was an error because Indiana statute provides that probation may not be revoked for failure to comply with a condition of a sentence that imposes financial obligations unless the person recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to pay.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that because in a prosecution for nonsupport of a dependent a defendant bears the burden of proving he was unable to provide support, when revoking probation for failing to support dependents the defendant also bears the burden of proving he wasn’t able to provide support.

Runyon didn’t prove his inability to pay, the appellate court concluded.

The Supreme Court also accepted National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al. v. Standard Fusee Corp., No. 49S04-1006-CV-318. The Indiana Court of Appeals for the first time adopted a site-specific approach to rule on an insurance case with multiple polices in several states. Previously, the appellate court had been following a uniform-contract interpretation approach when ruling on choice of law questions in contract actions.

The Court of Appeals concluded Indiana law would apply in the case since it had the most significant relationship with contamination involving sites in Indiana; California law would apply to the contaminated sites in that state.

The high court denied transfer to 34 other cases.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT