Smith v. State
2012 Ind. LEXIS 50
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Smith pled guilty to non-support of a dependent child (Class D felony) under a 2007 plea agreement that required weekly current support and an additional weekly arrearage payment.
- At sentencing, Smith began with full compliance on payments, including toward arrears, through 2008.
- From March 2009, Smith reduced or ceased payments; gaps occurred between May 2009–July 2009 and Sept 2009–Dec 2009.
- Probation officer petitioned to revoke on March 8, 2010 after Smith owed about $8,645.49 in unpaid support.
- A hearing on August 10, 2010 presented evidence of payment history, Smith’s testimony about health problems, and lack of clear proof of his ability to work.
- Trial court revoked probation; Court of Appeals reversed, State petitioned to transfer, and Supreme Court affirmed the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved a probation violation and the requisite mental state. | Smith conceded violation but argued lack of proof on ability-to-pay state of mind. | State did not show Smith knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally failed to pay. | Yes; state proved violation and knowledge-based mental state. |
| Whether the State or Smith bears the burden on inability to pay and whether Smith showed bona fide efforts to pay. | State burden to prove violation and state of mind; Smith failed to show inability/bona fide efforts. | Smith argued inability to pay; he did not receive sufficient proved evidence of inability. | Smith failed to prove inability to pay or genuine efforts; revocation affirmed. |
| What standard governs probation revocation and evaluation of evidence on appeal. | Probation is discretionary; abuse of discretion standard applies. | Standard requires deference to trial court if substantial evidence supports findings. | Abuse of discretion not shown; substantial evidence supported revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010) (probation may be revoked for financial-obligation violations only with proof of mental state and violation)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (burden to show inability to pay and bona fide efforts to pay)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (probation-revocation standards; burden on state to prove violations)
- Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. 2002) (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances)