MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 23 2018, 9:44 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John T. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Martez Wills, March 23, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A04-1704-CR-933 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Newman, Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C03-1603-F1-633
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 1 of 19 Case Summary and Issues [1] Following a jury trial, William Wills was convicted of two counts of attempted
murder, a Level 1 felony; attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a
Level 2 felony; battery by means of a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony; and
carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Wills also
pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a
Level 4 felony. Wills now appeals his convictions, raising the following issues
for our review: 1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
evidence; 2) whether there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions for
attempted murder and battery by means of a deadly weapon; 3) whether Wills’
convictions for attempted murder and attempted robbery violate Indiana’s state
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy; and 4) whether prosecutorial
misconduct occurred and whether that conduct amounts to fundamental error.
Concluding any error in the admission of evidence is harmless, there is
sufficient evidence to support Wills’ convictions, and the prosecution did not
commit misconduct, but that his convictions for attempted murder and
attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury violate principles of double
jeopardy, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Facts and Procedural History [2] In March of 2016, Daniel Shannon possessed around four ounces of marijuana
that he wanted to sell. Shannon’s friend, Madison Thomas, connected him
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 19 with K.J. McCarter, a potential buyer. After McCarter agreed to buy the
marijuana from Shannon, Thomas set up a meeting to facilitate the transaction.
[3] On March 5, 2016, the day before meeting with Shannon and Thomas to
purchase marijuana, McCarter discussed the arrangement with his friend,
Wills. Because McCarter owed Wills money, Wills told McCarter, “[w]e are
going to rob this bi*** and your [sic] going to set it up.” Transcript, Volume II
at 225. McCarter agreed to text Wills the details of when and where the deal
would occur so he could be present.
[4] On March 6, 2016, Shannon, Thomas, McCarter, and Wills met in a vacant
rental house in Anderson, Indiana. Shannon brought the marijuana, scales,
and plastic bags along. Thereafter, as Shannon began weighing the marijuana
in the kitchen, McCarter grabbed the bag of marijuana from him. Several
events then occurred simultaneously. Shannon immediately attacked McCarter
and punched him several times in his face. Their fight ultimately left McCarter
with a dislocated shoulder and he retreated to an adjacent room. While
Shannon and McCarter were fighting, Wills pulled out a handgun and fired one
bullet into the kitchen wall. Wills pointed the gun “up in the air” for this shot.
Tr., Vol. I at 191. This caused Thomas to escape out the door and run to her
car. Shannon then “wrestled” with Wills for a moment before turning to run
out the door. Id. at 192. Wills yelled at Shannon to “give me your sh*t.” Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 3 of 19 191. As he turned to run out the door, Wills “pistol whipped”1 Shannon in the
back of his head. Id. at 193. Immediately after being struck in the back of the
head, Shannon heard another gunshot directly “next to [his] ear.” Id. at 194.
Shannon then, while standing on the porch outside the home, turned to face
Wills. Wills pointed his handgun at Shannon’s face and again said, “give me
your sh*t . . . .” Id. Shannon responded Wills would have to “shot [sic] me in
my face for it.” Id. Wills then pointed his gun at Thomas’ car and fired a shot,
which struck Thomas in her collarbone. Shannon immediately jumped in the
car and drove Thomas to a hospital.
[5] The next morning, McCarter fled to Georgia and stayed with his mother.
McCarter remained in Georgia for a week before returning to Indiana to turn
himself in. Through McCarter’s jail phone calls, law enforcement learned of
Wills and his involvement. Wills was arrested on March 29, 2016.
[6] The State charged Wills with two counts of attempted murder, Level 1 felonies;
attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony; battery by
means of a deadly weapon, a Level 5 felony; and carrying a handgun without a
license, a Class A misdemeanor. The State also alleged Wills to be a serious
violent felon in possession of a firearm. A jury found Wills guilty as charged.
Following the jury’s verdict, Wills pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court sentenced Wills to thirty-five
1 By “pistol whipped[,]” Shannon meant Wills “took the butt of the gun and hit [him] in the back of the head . . . .” Id. at 193.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 4 of 19 years for each count of attempted murder; twenty years for attempted robbery;
four years for battery by means of a deadly weapon; and eight years for
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court
ordered Wills’ two sentences for attempted murder and his sentence for
unlawful possession of a firearm to run consecutively while the other sentences
were concurrent for an aggregate sentence of seventy-eight years. Wills now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision I. Admission of Evidence [7] Wills first argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of
text messages and phone calls from a cell phone obtained by police. We review
a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
Erickson v. State, 72 N.E.3d 965, 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. A trial
court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.
[8] At trial, the State introduced into evidence text messages and a call log from a
phone taken from Wills. The text messages and call log purported to show
Wills and McCarter setting up the arrangement to rob Shannon. First, we note
Wills did not object at trial to the admission of the text messages taken from the
phone. See Tr., Vol. III at 76. Thus, Wills has waived any error on appeal with
respect to this evidence. Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1239 (Ind. 2012).
Moreover, any error in the admission of this evidence is harmless. Errors in the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 5 of 19 admission of evidence are to be disregarded as harmless unless they affect the
substantial rights of a party. Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259, 1263 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000). In determining whether error in the introduction of evidence
affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we must assess the probable impact of
the improperly admitted evidence upon the jury. Id.
[9] Here, McCarter, Thomas, and Shannon all positively identified Wills as the
shooter. In light of this strong evidence, it is unlikely any error in the admission
of these cell phone records had any impact upon the jury.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence [10] Wills also challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support
his convictions for attempted murder and battery by means of a deadly weapon.
In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh
the evidence or judge witness credibility. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882
(Ind. 2017). We consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict and will affirm a conviction if there is probative evidence
from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence is sufficient if an inference may
reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d
130, 133 (Ind. 2016).
A. Attempted Murders [11] A person commits murder by “knowingly or intentionally kill[ing] another
human being.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). An “attempt” to commit a crime
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 6 of 19 occurs when a person, “acting with the culpability required for commission of
the crime, . . . engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward
commission of the crime.” Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a). Therefore, to obtain a
conviction for attempted murder, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Wills engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial
step toward killing Shannon and Thomas.
[12] The State must also demonstrate Wills acted with “specific intent to kill another
person.” Blanche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 709, 712 (Ind. 1998). The jury may infer
an “intent to kill” from the nature of the attack, the circumstances surrounding
the crime, and the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or
great bodily harm. Kiefer v. State, 761 N.E.2d 802, 805 (Ind. 2002). Discharging
a weapon in the direction of a victim is substantial evidence from which a jury
could infer a specific intent to kill. Corbin v. State, 840 N.E.2d 424, 429 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006).
[13] Wills argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed a
specific intent to kill Shannon. Specifically, Willis argues because Shannon had
his back turned towards him during the second shot and could not see where he
pointed the firearm, the State failed to present sufficient evidence of his intent to
kill Shannon.
[14] Under the circumstances presented by this case, the State presented sufficient
evidence for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Wills intended to kill
Shannon. The evidence most favorable to the verdict demonstrates that Wills
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 7 of 19 intended to rob Shannon and Thomas during a drug deal and had McCarter set
up the arrangement to do so. As the deal progressed, Wills pulled out a firearm
and fired a total of three shots. Wills fired the first shot into the kitchen wall.
Wills then “wrestled” with Shannon and “pistol whipped” him in the back of
the head before firing a shot “next to [Shannon’s] ear” as he ran out the
backdoor of the home. Tr., Vol. I at 193-94. The shot missed Shannon and
struck the hood of Thomas’ car. Wills’ underlying plan to rob Shannon and
Thomas, struggling with Shannon and striking him in the back of the head, and
firing a weapon in Shannon’s direction as he attempted to escape is sufficient
evidence for a jury to conclude Wills intended to kill Shannon. See Davis v.
State, 558 N.E.2d 811, 812 (Ind. 1990) (firing a weapon at a police officer and
striking the car behind him is sufficient evidence to support an attempted
murder conviction); Brumbaugh v. State, 491 N.E.2d 983, 984 (Ind. 1986) (firing
a shotgun at a police helicopter where the bullet “whizzed” by the officer’s head
is sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction for attempted murder).2
[15] As to Thomas, Wills argues there is insufficient evidence he knew she was in
the car when he fired his gun and therefore insufficient evidence of his specific
intent to kill her. He bases this argument on the testimony of Detective Doug
Stanton, who testified that, based on the angle of the shot that struck Thomas, it
2 Wills’ argument that he lacked an intent to kill because he had multiple opportunities to kill Shannon and declined to do so is simply a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Leonard, 80 N.E.3d at 882.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 8 of 19 was possible that she was ducking down in the front seat of the car. However,
Wills’ argument is undercut by Shannon’s and Thomas’ testimony.
[State]: [H]e is pointing what at your face?
[Shannon]: The gun.
[State]: Okay. He pointed the gun at your face and what happened next?
[Shannon]: He pointed it at the car and let off a round.
[State]: At that point could you see [Thomas] in the car?
[Shannon]: Yes.
[State]: And you saw [Wills] point the gun at your face and then at the car?
Tr., Vol. I at 195.
[State]: Did you ever see [Wills] point the gun at you?
[Thomas]: Yes in my car and in the living room.
[State]: Okay and when he pointed the gun at you when you were in the car. Could you see him?
[Thomas]: Yeah he was on the porch.
Tr., Vol. II at 3. Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record to permit a jury
to conclude Wills saw Thomas in the car, pointed the gun at her, and pulled the
trigger. Wills’ argument to the contrary is a request to reweigh evidence, which
we cannot do. Leonard, 80 N.E.3d at 882.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 9 of 19 B. Battery by Means of a Deadly Weapon [16] Wills also briefly alleges there is insufficient evidence to convict him of battery
by means of a deadly weapon. Specifically, he argues “[n]o medical evidence
was presented by the State that Shannon was hit by the butt of a gun or any
other hard object.” Appellant’s Brief at 13.
[17] To convict Wills of battery by means of a deadly weapon, the State was
required to prove Wills knowingly or intentionally touched Shannon in a rude,
insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c). The offense is a Level 5
felony if it is committed with a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(g)(2). A
“deadly weapon” is defined as a “loaded or unloaded firearm” or a “destructive
device, weapon, . . . equipment, . . . or other material that in the manner it is
used, could ordinarily be used, or is intended to be used, is readily capable of
causing serious bodily injury.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-86(a).
[18] The evidence is undisputed Wills possessed a firearm during these events.
Moreover, Shannon testified Wills used the “butt of the gun [to] hit [Shannon]
in the back of the head . . . .” Tr., Vol. I at 193. This caused Shannon to bleed
near the crown of his head. The statute does not require the State to present
“medical evidence” and the testimony of a single victim is sufficient to support
Wills’ conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon. Brasher v. State, 746
N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind. 2001).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 10 of 19 III. Double Jeopardy [19] Next, Wills alleges his convictions for attempted robbery resulting in serious
bodily injury and attempted murder violate Indiana’s constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy. We review alleged double jeopardy violations de
novo. Ellis v. State, 29 N.E.3d 792, 797 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.
[20] Article 1, section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall
be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Two offenses are the “same
offense” in violation of Indiana’s double jeopardy clause if, with respect to
either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence
used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish
the essential elements of another challenged offense. Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d
831, 832 (Ind. 2002). To demonstrate two challenged offenses are the same
under the actual evidence test, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable
possibility the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential
elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential
elements of a second challenged offense. Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 53
(Ind. 1999). We conduct our analysis by examining the evidence presented at
trial to determine whether each challenged offense was established by separate
and distinct facts. Id. There is no double jeopardy violation when the
evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense establish only
one or even several, but not all, of the elements of a second offense. Spivey, 761
N.E.2d at 833.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 11 of 19 [21] Wills contends the record reflects a reasonable possibility “the jury used the
same evidence to support” his convictions of attempted murder and attempted
robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Appellant’s Br. at 19. Specifically,
Wills alleges a reasonable possibility the jury used Thomas’ injury as the basis
for both the serious bodily injury enhancement3 for attempted robbery and the
substantial step in the commission of the attempted murder. However, this
argument, even if sustained, does not violate the Richardson actual evidence test
because, as noted, under that test, “the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not
violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one
offense also establish only one or even several, but not all, of the essential
elements of a second offense.” Spivey, 761 N.E.2d at 833. The test is “not
merely whether the evidentiary facts used to establish one of the essential
elements of one offense may also have been used to establish one of the essential
elements of a second challenged offense.” Id.
[22] Wills does not argue that the facts establishing all the elements of attempted
murder establish all the elements of attempted robbery resulting in serious
bodily injury. Therefore, Wills has failed to establish a violation of the
Richardson actual evidence test.
3 Indiana Code section 35-42-5-1(a) provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person by using or threatening the use of force on any person or by putting any person in fear commits robbery, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a . . . Level 2 felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 12 of 19 [23] However, as our courts have often noted, Indiana’s double jeopardy
jurisprudence still adheres to a series of rules of statutory construction and
common law that are separate and in addition to the protections afforded by
our constitution. These rules are often referred to as “Justice Sullivan’s
categories” because he first enumerated them in his concurring opinion in
Richardson. Zieman v. State, 990 N.E.2d 53, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). One of
these categories prohibits “conviction and punishment for an enhancement of a
crime where the enhancement is imposed for the very same behavior or harm as
another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished.”
Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind. 2002). Justice Sullivan explained
that “[i]n situations where a defendant has been convicted of one crime for
engaging in the specified additional behavior or causing the specified additional
harm, that behavior or harm cannot also be used as an enhancement of a
separate crime; either the enhancement or the separate crime is vacated.”
Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 56 (Sullivan, J. concurring). Therefore, we phrase
the issue as whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury used the same
facts to establish both the substantial step element of Wills’ attempted murder of
Thomas and the serious bodily injury element of his Level 2 attempted robbery
resulting in serious bodily injury. To determine which facts the jury used to
establish each element of an offense we consider “the evidence, charging
information, final jury instructions and arguments of counsel.” Boss v. State,
964 N.E.2d 931, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[24] The State’s charging information stated as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 13 of 19 On or about March 6, 2016, in Madison County, State of Indiana, William Martez Wills did intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward killing another human being, to wit: M.T.
***
On or about March 6, 2016, in Madison County, State of Indiana, William Martez Wills did knowingly or intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward taking property from another person or from the presence of another person, to wit: M.T. or Daniel Shannon, by using or threatening the use of force or by putting any person in fear. Further, the act resulted in serious bodily injury to M.T.
Appellant’s Appendix, Volume II at 62-63. Moreover, at closing arguments,
the State argued the same act and injury in support of both charges. The
prosecutor argued,
On March 6th of 2016, [Wills] pointed and fired a gun at Madison Thomas. We have the bullet hole in the car windshield and the bullet hole in her chest. He pointed the gun at Daniel and then he moved the gun and pointed it at [Thomas]. . . . [Wills] did knowingly or intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward taking property from another person . . . by using or threaten[ing] the use of force . . . . [Wills] tried to take the marijuana. [Thomas] had the serious bodily injury.
Tr., Vol. III at 100-01, 102-03. Based on the charging information, evidence
presented at trial, and the prosecutor’s argument to the jury, we conclude that
there is a reasonable possibility the jury used the evidence of Thomas’ injury as
the substantial step element of attempted murder and the resulting serious
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 14 of 19 bodily injury element of attempted robbery, resulting in a violation of double
jeopardy principles.4
[25] As to the proper relief in this case, we observe,
When two convictions are found to contravene double jeopardy principles, a reviewing court may remedy the violation by reducing either conviction to a less serious form of the same offense if doing so will eliminate the violation. In the alternative, a reviewing court may vacate one of the convictions to eliminate a double jeopardy violation. In making that determination, we must be mindful of the penal consequences that the trial court found appropriate.
McCann v. State, 854 N.E.2d 905, 915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The double
jeopardy violation that exists here is remedied by removing the serious bodily
injury enhancement of Wills’ conviction of attempted robbery and reducing that
conviction to a Level 3 felony. See Ind. Code 35-42-5-1(a) (robbery committed
while armed with a deadly weapon is enhanced to a Level 3 felony). Thus, we
remand with instructions to the trial court to reduce Wills’ attempted robbery
conviction to a Level 3 felony and to re-sentence him accordingly.
4 The State argues there is no double jeopardy violation because “Wills was guilty of attempted murder regardless of whether the bullet hit Thomas. . . . Therefore, Wills was not being punished for the ‘very same behavior or harm.’” Brief of Appellee at 26. However, while that may be, the bullet did strike Thomas and Wills was subsequently tried and convicted for that act and harm. See Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 60 (Ind. 1995) (reducing an enhancement to a robbery conviction because the very same killing that was the basis of the enhancement was also the basis of a murder conviction).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 15 of 19 IV. Prosecutorial Misconduct [26] Finally, Wills alleges the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing
arguments. Specifically, Wills contends the prosecution misstated evidence,
commented on evidence not supported by the record, and misstated Indiana
case law to the jury.
[27] A claim of prosecutorial misconduct requires us to make the following
determinations: first, we determine whether the prosecutor’s conduct qualifies
as misconduct, and second, whether any misconduct “placed the defendant in a
position of gravel peril” to which he otherwise would not have been subjected.
Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014). A prosecutor has a duty to present
persuasive final argument and it is proper for a prosecutor to propound
conclusions based on his or her analysis of the evidence. Id. To determine if
misconduct occurred, reviewing courts look to case law and the Indiana Rules
of Professional Conduct. Id.
[28] A defendant alleging a claim of prosecutorial misconduct must object at trial to
preserve any claim of error. Id. A defendant’s failure to object at trial will
waive any error unless the prosecutor’s conduct constitutes fundamental error.
Id. at 667-68. Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception to the
waiver rule where the defendant faces the heavy burden of showing that the
alleged errors are so prejudicial to the defendant’s rights as to “make a fair trial
impossible.” Id. at 668 (citation omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 16 of 19 [29] Wills failed to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument at trial and has
waived this argument unless fundamental error occurred. Waiver
notwithstanding, we conclude no prosecutorial misconduct occurred in this
case.
[30] Wills’ first allegation of misconduct states “both prosecutors argued that Wills
fired the gun at Daniel Shannon as he was ‘walking’ or ‘running’ out to the
car.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. Wills contends this was in error because there was
no evidence to support these comments. Shannon testified “I guess we wrestled
for a second and then umm, I released and tried running out myself.” Tr., Vol.
I at 192. Later in his testimony Shannon again stated that after he “wrestled”
with Wills, “[he] turned around to run out of the house.” Tr., Vol. I at 192.
The prosecution’s comments that Shannon walked or ran out of the house is a
proper characterization of the evidence.
[31] Wills also alleges the prosecution misstated evidence when it informed the jury
“Wills could see Madison Thomas in the car.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. Shannon
testified Madison was visible in her car from the back porch of the home and
Thomas testified she could see Wills on the back porch from her location in the
car. Moreover, Detective Doug Stanton testified there a “line of sight” from the
back porch to the car because the back porch was elevated. Tr., Vol. II at 130.
The prosecution’s characterization of this evidence was not improper.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 17 of 19 [32] Finally, Wills contends the prosecutor gave the jury an incomplete statement of
law regarding attempted murder. During closing argument, the prosecutor
stated,
The law in Indiana from Perez v. State. Intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or cause pre-bodily harm. It also says discharging a weapon in a direction of a victim is a substantial evidence from which the jury could infer intent to kill.
Tr., Vol. III at 109. The prosecution later argued that “[s]pecific intent is at the
moment in this case when the gun was fired. At that moment is when the
attempted murder was committed.” Id. at 130. Wills alleges this comment
impacted the jury’s ability to judge the evidence by leading the jury to believe
simply pulling the trigger of a gun is enough to convict Wills of attempted
murder.
[33] The prosecution’s statement is an accurate statement of law and does not
constitute misconduct. In this case, the attempt to commit murder did occur
when Wills pulled the trigger. The jury’s duty was to determine, at the time
Wills pulled the trigger, whether he had specific intent to kill Thomas and
Shannon. Wills takes issue with one sentence of a prolonged closing statement
in which the prosecution detailed at length the nature and circumstances under
which the crimes occurred. Further, the final jury instructions informed the
jury of the definition of “intent” under Indiana law and its role in adjudicating
the facts of the case. The trial court instructed the jury, “[a] person engages in
conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when the person engages in the conduct, it is the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 18 of 19 person’s conscious objective to so engage in such conduct.” Tr., Vol. III at 140.
The jury was also informed that “[y]ou are the exclusive judges of the evidence,
which may be either witness testimony or exhibits. . . . [I]t is your duty to
decide the value you give to the exhibits you receive and the testimony you
hear.” Id. at 141. We conclude Wills failed to establish any misconduct in this
Conclusion [34] We conclude any error in the admission of evidence is harmless, there is
sufficient evidence to support Wills’ convictions of attempted murder and
battery by means of a deadly weapon, and the prosecution did not commit
prosecutorial misconduct. However, we also conclude Wills’ convictions for
attempted murder and attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury
violate principles of double jeopardy. Consequently, we affirm in part and
reverse and remand in part with instructions to the trial court to reduce Wills’
attempted robbery conviction to a Level 3 felony and to re-sentence him
accordingly.
[35] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1704-CR-933 | March 23, 2018 Page 19 of 19