Smith v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 478
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Smith pled guilty to non-support of a dependent child, Class D felony, May 22, 2007; three-year sentence suspended on probation conditioned on weekly child support payments of $78.79.
- From June 26, 2007 to November 23, 2008, Smith paid on time and toward arrears, totaling $114.79 per week.
- In late November 2008, the obligation increased to $124 per week, but Smith continued paying $114.79 weekly.
- Payments became sparse in 2009 (April–July) with some consistency again in August–September 2009; Smith began making payments outside automatic payroll deductions and tax intercepts.
- The record shows tax intercepts of $1,520 and $1,054 credited to his account; several small payments (e.g., $15, $40) occurred, with final payment December 16, 2009.
- March 8, 2010, the State moved to revoke probation for failure to pay weekly; an evidentiary hearing occurred August 10, 2010. Smith testified to health problems, back surgery, job loss in August 2009, medical treatment at free clinics, no health insurance, and attempts to obtain disability benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved a probation violation for failure to pay weekly | Smith failed to pay weekly; violation occurred. | Partial payments and health/inability to pay negate the violation. | The State failed to prove the violation; abuse of discretion also shown. |
| Who bears the burden to prove ability to pay | State must prove Smith could pay. | Smith's health and income issues negate ability to pay; burden may differ by step. | State must prove ability to pay; Smith's inability to pay can negate the requisite mental state. |
| Whether partial payments constitute a knowing failure to pay | Partial payments show failure to pay weekly. | Partial payments do not, by themselves, establish knowing failure to pay absent awareness of consequences. | Partial payments do not by themselves establish a knowing failure to pay. |
| Whether revocation to the full sentence was an abuse of discretion | If violation occurred, full revocation appropriate. | Smith's health and finances do not support full revocation. | Even if violation occurred, revocation to full was an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010) (State bears burden to prove violation and ability to pay; mental-state element must be proven)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (admitted violations allow proceeding to second step with mitigation opportunity)
- Szpunar v. State, 914 N.E.2d 773 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (State bears burden to prove ability to pay where restitution is at issue)
- Stephens v. State, 874 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (evidence of arrears can support an intentional failure to provide support, in different context)
- Blatchford v. State, 673 N.E.2d 783 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (clarifies burden considerations in financial-violation contexts)
- Park 100 Dev. Co. v. Ind. Dept. of Revenue, 429 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 1981) (cautious statutory construction to avoid absurd results)
- Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 418 N.E.2d 211 (Ind. 1981) (interpret statutes to prevent irrational outcomes)
- Keramida v. Zachmanoglou, 470 N.E.2d 769 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984) (principles of practical statutory interpretation)
- Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001) (involuntary intoxication analogies in mental-state considerations)
- Davis v. State, 481 N.E.2d 434 (Ind.Ct.App. 1985) (burden on State to show absence of affirmative defense)