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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT