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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT