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. 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