Bitner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In addition to any sentence imposed under this article for a felony or misdemeanor, the court may, as a condition of probation or without placing the person on probation, order the person to make restitution to the victim of the crime.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. State · Savage v. State

2. “A finding of indigency for the purpose of appointing defense counsel is not conclusive as to a defendant’s ability to pay a fine or cost. [Citations to Marshall and Meeker omitted.] But a trial court can be made aware of a defendant’s indigen-cy when it appoints pauper counsel. [Citation to Whitehead omitted.] ... [Indiana Code Section] 35-38-l-18(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Whenever the court imposes a fine, it shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent.” (Emphasis supplied). In Meeker, supra, this court determined that an affirmative duty is placed upon the trial court by statute to conduct an indigency hearing, so it was error for the trial court to impose fines and costs upon Bitner without deciding whether he was indigent. The supreme court’s holding in Whitehead, supra, was that when a fine is imposed on an indigent defendant, the trial court must expressly state in the sentence that the defendant shall not be imprisoned for failing to pay the fine. This court’s decision in Marshall, supra, that no appealable' issue is' presented until an effort is made to enforce the fines and costs, was therefore impliedly overruled by the supreme court in Whitehead . The factual situation in Whitehe.ad was similar to that in Marshall : a defendant had been fined and costs imposed with- ■ out an indigency hearing. On appeal, the courts in both Whitehead and Marshall concluded the defendant was indigent. The court in Marshall , while determining ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Everroad v. State

3. “Concerning the fine, [Indiana Code Section] 35-50-2-3 ... allows the court to impose a fine of up to $10,000. However, [Indiana Code Section] 35-38-l-18(a) ... provides that when the court imposes a fine on the defendant, it must conduct a hearing to determine if the defendant is indigent. Here, the trial court was atoare of Appellant’s indigency because it appointed pauper appellate counsel. The State concedes that when a fine is imposed upon an indigent, the trial court must expressly state that the defendant shall not be imprisoned for failing to pay the fine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Everroad v. State