Kays v. State
963 N.E.2d 507
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Kays and Wolfe disputed a property line; Wolfe injuries led to hospital bill; Kays convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery; restitution of $1,496.15 ordered as probation term; Kays’ only income is $674/month Social Security; trial court declined to modify restitution despite claimed inability to pay; Court of Appeals remanded for ability-to-pay hearing and payment method; Indiana Supreme Court reverses and remands for proper ability-to-pay determination while allowing consideration of Social Security income.
- Record shows lack of education, work history, assets in presentence report; trial court did not clearly inquire into Kays’ finances beyond noting SS income; parties challenged whether SS benefits can be used to determine ability to pay.
- Statutory provision Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(5) requires fixing amount and manner of restitution based on ability to pay; no fixed procedure mandated, but inquiry into ability to pay is required to avoid indigency imprisonment.
- Court of Appeals held restitution could not be based on Social Security income; Supreme Court disagrees and endorses considering such income to assess ability to pay.
- Court remands to determine ability to pay and the manner of payment; affirms that SS income can be considered consistent with federal antiattachment provision 42 U.S.C. § 407(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restoration can be imposed without determining ability to pay. | Kays argues lack of ability-to-pay inquiry. | State contends inquiry exists; remand suffices. | Remand for ability-to-pay determination. |
| Whether Social Security income can be considered in ability to pay. | Kays relies on 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) to ignore SS income. | State argues SS income may be considered in ability to pay. | SS income may be considered in evaluating ability to pay. |
| Whether the court must fix the manner/place of payment. | Restitution amount without payment plan is improper. | Court may determine payment manner on remand. | Remand to fix manner of payment. |
| Standard of review for restitution terms. | Abuse of discretion should be found for improper restitution. | Restitution within trial court discretion. | Restitution terms reviewed for abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the Court should ignore the SS benefits per 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). | Ignore SS benefits in ability-to-pay analysis. | Consider SS benefits in overall financial picture. | Court may consider SS benefits in ability-to-pay assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 2008) (restitution requires ability-to-pay inquiry when imposed)
- Champlain v. State, 717 N.E.2d 567 (Ind.1999) (inquiry into defendant’s finances required for restitution)
- Savage v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (inquiry aided by financial information; relied upon inability-to-pay context)
- Ladd v. State, 710 N.E.2d 188 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (indigent defendants not imprisoned for inability to pay)
- Jaramillo v. State, 803 N.E.2d 243 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (restitution within probation discretion; abuse standard applied)
- Bailey v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.1999) (probation terms reviewed for abuse of discretion)