ILNews

COA: State didn't meet burden for probation revocation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held – with a few exceptions – that a trial court may revoke probation for not satisfying a financial obligation only if the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence there is less than full payment and the probationer submitted that smaller payment recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.

This issue arose in Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 35A02-1008-CR-996. Troy Smith appealed his revocation of probation for not paying child support weekly, which was a condition of his probation. At first, Smith was current on his payments of weekly child support and arrearage. When the trial court increased his obligation, Smith continued to pay the previous amount. His payments later became intermittent and some were only partial payments after he lost his job and suffered health issues.

At the hearing to revoke his probation, Smith didn’t explicitly admit he fell behind in payments, but explained he had serious health conditions, lost his job as a truck driver, and had submitted job applications to no avail. The trial court revoked his probation, finding he failed to make regular payments when he was employed and after he lost his job. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

To revoke probation, the state only has to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation is a two-step process – the court makes a factual determination the probation violation occurred and the court determines if the violation warrants revocation. Probation for not paying can’t be revoked unless the person recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally doesn’t pay.

The Court of Appeals concluded there was no indication that Smith knew or was aware of a high probability that his partial payments would equate failure to make weekly payments. They held that ruling his partial payments constituted a knowing failure would render the statutory mental state requirement for revocation meaningless and contrary to public policy.

“To conclude Smith’s partial payments constitute a knowing failure to make weekly payments would discourage partial payment for the benefit (albeit limited) of his children in favor of no payment at all,” wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb.

She noted that partial payments don’t always foreclose a finding of knowing or intentional failure to pay.

Citing Szpunar v. State, 914 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), and Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 616 (Ind. 2010), the judges explained that it is the state that has the burden to prove both the violation and requisite state of mind in order to obtain a probation revocation.

“To prove ‘knowingly’ the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer was able to pay. Our holdings do not apply, of course, where a probationer admits his violation and the trial court proceeds directly to the second step of the revocation process,” wrote the chief judge.

Neither the state nor Smith made an explicit argument as to his ability to pay during any period. Because the state didn’t present evidence to establish his ability to pay during the relevant period, it didn’t satisfy its burden. The trial court abused its discretion in revoking Smith’s probation.  

The judges reversed the order, finding that even if he did violate his probation, the record doesn’t support revocation in full.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT