Nicholas Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 19, 2016
• Docket: 49A04-1510-CR-1582
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION Apr 19 2016, 11:02 am

CLERK Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals this Memorandum Decision shall not be and Tax Court

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. Borschel Gregory F. Zoeller Fishers, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nicholas Williams, April 19, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1510-CR-1582 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc T. Appellee-Plaintiff. Rothenberg, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G02-1408-F1-38594

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1510-CR-1582 | April 19, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Nicholas Williams appeals his conviction for attempted murder, a felony,

following a jury trial. He presents a single issue for our review, namely,

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut his self-defense claim.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In July 2014, Williams and Devon Carter were working at Fastenal in

Indianapolis. The two men had been coworkers for a couple of months and did

not get along. During the early morning hours of July 9, Williams “got mad”

at Carter when Carter did not help Williams move a box. Tr. at 34. After both

men left work at 7:00 a.m. that morning, Carter saw Williams sitting in his car

in the parking lot as Carter got into his car. When Carter drove out of the

parking lot, Williams followed him. At some point, Williams pulled up next to

Carter and began “yelling” at Carter and asked him why Carter was “playing

with him[.]” Id. at 38. Carter responded that it was not “really that deep.” Id.

Carter tried to pull away from Williams, but Williams “ended up catching up”

with Carter. Id.

[4] At that point, Carter “made a quick turn” into a neighborhood in an effort to

“lose” Williams, but Williams continued to follow him. Id. at 39. Carter

turned around and left the neighborhood and continued driving, and Williams

continued to follow him. Williams then “sped up” and pulled up to the side of

Carter’s car. Id. at 40. Carter looked over and saw that Williams was pointing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1510-CR-1582 | April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 5 a gun at him. As Carter “swerved off the road” to try to get away from

Williams, Williams shot him three times, hitting Carter in the head, hand, and

right armpit. Id. at 42. Williams drove away at a high rate of speed. After

Carter’s car came to a rest in a ditch, Nouhou Abdou, a coworker of Carter’s

and Williams’ who had witnessed these events from his own car,1 came to

Carter’s aid. Carter was hospitalized and recovered from the gunshot wounds.

[5] The State charged Williams with attempted murder, a felony, and aggravated

battery, as a Level 3 felony. Williams told the investigating police officer that

he had shot Carter in self-defense. In particular, Williams stated that: Carter

had threatened to shoot Williams the morning of the shooting; coworkers had

told Williams that Carter had a gun; Carter was supposed to get off work at

6:00 a.m. but stayed until 7:00 a.m., when Williams’ shift ended; Carter had

followed Williams to the site of the shooting; and Williams only had a gun

because he had felt threatened by Carter. But Williams also admitted that he

had not seen Carter with a gun prior to the shooting. At trial, Williams did not

testify, but the jury watched a video of Williams’ statements to the police

officer. The jury found Williams guilty of attempted murder, and the State

dismissed the aggravated battery charge. The trial court entered judgment and

sentenced Williams accordingly. This appeal ensued.

1 Abdou took a photograph of Williams’ car with his phone as it sped away.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1510-CR-1582 | April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Discussion and Decision [6] Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence contending the State failed

to rebut his claim of self-defense. As our supreme court has explained:

A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3- 2(a); Wallace v. State, 725 N.E.2d 837, 840 (Ind. 2000). In order to prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that he: (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. McEwen v. State, 695 N.E.2d 79, 90 (Ind. 1998). When a claim of self-defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. Id. If a defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, this Court will reverse only if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 924 (Ind. 1999). . . . The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Sanders v. State, 704 N.E.2d 119, 123 (Ind. 1999). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the [judgment] will not be disturbed. Id.

Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800-01 (Ind. 2002).

[7] Williams’ arguments on appeal amount to nothing more than requests that we

reweigh the evidence and reassess the credibility of witnesses, which we will not

do. The State presented evidence that Williams waited for Carter to get into his

car and leave the parking lot and that Williams followed Carter. And the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1510-CR-1582 | April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 5 evidence shows that Carter tried to evade Williams, but Williams stayed in

pursuit of Carter. Williams admitted to police that he never saw Carter with a

gun. In sum, the State presented ample evidence to negate two elements of

Williams’ self-defense claim, namely, that he did not provoke, instigate, or

participate willingly in the violence and that Carter had caused Williams to

have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. See id. The State

presented sufficient evidence to negate Williams’ self-defense claim, and the

evidence is sufficient to support Williams’ conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1510-CR-1582 | April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 5