Cynthia Bell v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. LEXIS 672

Cynthia Bell was convicted after a bench trial of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief for damaging a victim’s vehicles and home; total restitution was calculated at $932.30.
At a separate restitution hearing Bell testified she has not worked in over 20 years, lives on $730/month SSI, has no savings or assets, relies on food pantries, and has no disposable income.
The State did not present evidence or cross-examine Bell about her finances; the trial court nonetheless ordered restitution as a condition of probation at $20/week (≈ $80/month).
Bell appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because the record lacked evidence she could or would be able to pay.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer from the Court of Appeals and vacated the restitution order, finding the trial court failed to properly assess Bell’s actual ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bell waived appellate review of the restitution order by not objecting at trial	State: restitution is part of sentence; usual preservation rules apply	Bell: appellate courts routinely review sentencing errors even without contemporaneous objection	Court: No waiver — restitution is a sentencing component and appellate review is appropriate
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering restitution as a condition of probation without an adequate inquiry into ability to pay	State: court may order restitution as condition of probation and the record supported the payment plan	Bell: she presented unrebutted evidence of inability to pay; statute requires the court to fix an amount the person can or will be able to pay	Court: Abused discretion — the court failed to make a sufficient inquiry or receive rebuttal evidence; restitution vacated

Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 2012) (restitution as probation condition requires inquiry into ability to pay)
Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (distinguishes restitution as money judgment from restitution as probation condition)
Miller v. State, 502 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. 1986) (restitution is part of criminal sentence)
Champlain v. State, 717 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1999) (factors a court may consider in ability-to-pay inquiry)
Kincaid v. State, 837 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2005) (appellate review of sentencing errors without prior objection)
Smith v. State, 471 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (trial court must inquire into defendant's ability to pay before fixing restitution)
Sales v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1336 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (restitution statute requires assessment of ability to pay)
Judge v. State, 659 N.E.2d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (defendant bears burden to present evidence of indigency when requested by court)
Laker v. State, 869 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (restitution review standards)
Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate courts often address restitution orders despite lack of trial objection)