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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT