ILNews

Defendant must prove inability to pay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she wasn't able to provide support at a probation revocation hearing for failing to support dependants, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.

"Because in a prosecution for nonsupport of a dependent a defendant bears the burden of proving that he was unable to provide support, it likewise follows that when revoking a defendant's probation for failing to support his or her dependents, the defendant also bears the burden of proving that he or she was unable to provide support," wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

To hold otherwise would create an "undesirable inconsistency" in which the defendant would have to prove he couldn't pay in criminal proceedings for nonsupport of a defendant but the state would have to prove his inability to pay in probation revocation procedures for failure to pay child support, she continued.

In Dannie Ray Runyon v. State of Indiana, No. 57A04-0910-CR-575, Dannie Ray Runyon appealed the revocation of his probation and imposition of 6 years of a previously suspended 8-year sentence for failing to pay child support in violation of his probation. Runyon had pleaded guilty to Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent and was placed on probation with several conditions, including making weekly payments on his child support arrearage.

Less than a year after he was put on probation, the state alleged he violated its conditions by not paying court costs, probation user fees, and toward his child support arrearage. He had made inconsistent payments, which he claimed was because he lost his job. At the probation violation hearing, Runyon claimed he had a job lined up, but was then unable to verify his employment. He also failed to provide many details as to when he lost his jobs, and why he wasn't working.

Runyon doesn't contest that he violated the terms of his probation, but argued the revocation was an error because Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(f) 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.

In the context of revoking probation for failure to pay restitution, the state bears the burden of proving the defendant had the ability to pay. But in a prosecution for nonsupport of a dependant, the defendant has to prove he couldn't provide support. This should also be the case when revoking a defendant's probation for failing to support his dependants, wrote Judge Vaidik.

If not, the inconsistency of requiring the defendant to prove inability to pay in criminal proceedings, but requiring the state to prove that at probation revocation hearings could result in the state strategically choosing either to file a new criminal charge for nonsupport of a dependant or to institute a probation revocation hearing, she continued.

Runyon failed to show his inability to pay and the trial court didn't err by sentencing him to 6 years of his previously suspended sentence.

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT