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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT