Domeneque Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                      FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                             Dec 18 2019, 10:49 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                               CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                   Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Joel M. Schumm                                          Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Indianapolis, Indiana                                   Attorney General
    Benjamin J. Shoptaw
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Domeneque Williams,                                     December 18, 2019
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-CR-1295
    v.                                              Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable Stanley Kroh,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                      Magistrate
    Trial Court Cause No.
    49G03-1803-F5-8574
    Crone, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019              Page 1 of 7
    Case Summary
    [1]   Domeneque Williams appeals his conviction for level 6 felony criminal
    recklessness. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the State
    presented sufficient evidence to support Williams’s conviction and to rebut his
    claim of self-defense. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   On March 8, 2018, Williams and his girlfriend, Sariyah Stephens, were at
    Stephens’s Indianapolis apartment where they argued and were involved in a
    “tussl[e].” Tr. Vol. 2 at 149. When Stephens’s brother, John Buchanan, and
    his girlfriend, Daeja Pinkins, later arrived at the apartment, Buchanan noticed
    that his sister was crying and had scratches on her. After Williams left the
    apartment, Stephens told Buchanan that she and Williams had gotten into a
    fight. Buchanan was mad that Williams “put his hands on” his sister, so he
    went looking for Williams and located him outside the apartment. 
    Id. The two
    men got “right in each other[’]s face” and Buchanan twice asked Williams to
    fight. 
    Id. Williams refused
    to fight, and neither man touched the other.
    [3]   At some point during this verbal altercation, Williams stepped back, pulled out
    a handgun, and cocked it behind his back. Stephens and Pinkins had come
    outside and tried to calm the men down. Buchanan, Stephens, and Pinkins
    began walking down a stairway, with Williams following behind them.
    Buchanan and Williams continued to exchange words. Buchanan said, “Bro,
    you just pulled a gun out on me,” and, “Well you should have used it if you
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 2 of 7
    pulled it out, you should have used it, that’s what you got your gun for.” 
    Id. at 151.
    Williams replied, “Well, I will use [my gun].” 
    Id. Williams then
    fired
    two shots into the air and left the apartment complex. Buchanan went back to
    Stephens’s apartment and called the police. Police found two 9-millimeter shell
    casings in the parking lot of the apartment complex.
    [4]   The State charged Williams with level 5 felony intimidation, level 6 felony
    strangulation, level 6 felony domestic battery, level 6 felony pointing a firearm,
    level 6 felony criminal recklessness, class A misdemeanor domestic battery,
    class A misdemeanor battery, and class A misdemeanor theft. Following a jury
    trial, the jury found Williams guilty of level 6 felony criminal recklessness and
    not guilty on the other counts. The trial court sentenced him to 545 days, with
    365 days of community service and 180 days of probation. This appeal ensued.
    Discussion and Decision
    Section 1 – The State presented sufficient evidence that
    Williams created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another
    person.
    [5]   Williams first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
    conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither
    reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 
    31 N.E.3d 495
    ,
    499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
    therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative
    evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant
    guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id. In short,
    if the testimony believed by the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 3 of 7
    trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will
    not disturb it. 
    Id. at 500.
    [6]   To prove level 6 felony criminal recklessness, the State was required to prove
    that, while armed with a deadly weapon, Williams recklessly, knowingly, or
    intentionally performed an act that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to
    another person. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(b)(1)(A). Williams challenges solely the
    State’s proof as to whether his actions creates a “substantial risk of bodily injury
    to another person.” 
    Id. [7] Williams
    concedes that he pulled out a handgun and “shot twice into the air
    while in an apartment building parking lot.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. He further
    concedes that the evidence demonstrated that there were at least a few
    individuals in the vicinity, as well as five vehicles parked in the lot. Still, he
    claims that the risk of bodily injury to another person here was “insubstantial.”
    
    Id. We disagree.
    [8]   Williams likens his case to Elliott v. State, 
    560 N.E.2d 1266
    (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
    In Elliott, another panel of this Court determined that the defendant’s
    celebratory act of firing shots “upwards at approximately a 10 degree angle”
    toward uninhabited fields and woodlands adjacent to the edge of his used car
    lot located “on the outskirts of Greenfield” did not create a substantial risk of
    bodily injury to another person because the evidence demonstrated that “there
    were no people in or near his line of fire.” 
    Id. at 1267.
    In contrast, the evidence
    here demonstrated that several people were in or near Williams’s line of fire.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 4 of 7
    Unlike in Elliott, Williams did not simply fire shots in the direction of an
    undisputedly uninhabited area; he fired shots up in the air while Buchanan,
    Pinkins, and Stephens were all nearby. A reasonable juror could infer that any
    one of the bullets could have come down and struck one of those individuals, or
    easily ricocheted off one of the parked vehicles or the two-story apartment
    building and struck one of those individuals. Indeed, officers found two shell
    casings in the parking lot next to vehicles. This evidence is sufficient to support
    a conclusion that Williams’s behavior created a substantial risk of bodily injury
    to another person. See Woods v. State, 
    768 N.E.2d 1024
    , 1028 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2002) (finding sufficient evidence of substantial risk of injury to others because
    shots were fired in residential area and not improbable that bullet could have
    ricocheted and struck nearby people). The State presented sufficient evidence
    to support Williams’s conviction for level 6 felony criminal recklessness.
    Section 2 – The State presented sufficient evidence to rebut
    Williams’s self-defense claim.
    [9]   Williams maintains that, even assuming the State presented sufficient evidence
    to support his conviction, the conviction cannot stand because the State failed
    to rebut his self-defense claim. 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 claim. Wilson v. State, 
    770 N.E.2d 799
    , 801 (Ind.
    2002). 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 verdict will not be disturbed. 
    Id. Court of
    Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 5 of 7
    [10]   Self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. Bryant v. State,
    
    984 N.E.2d 240
    , 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Indiana Code Section
    35-41-3-2(c) provides that “[a] person is justified in using reasonable force
    against any other person to protect the person … from what the person
    reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.” To prevail on
    his self-defense claim, Williams was required to show that he: “(1) was in a
    place where he had a right to be; (2) acted without fault; and (3) was in
    reasonable fear o[r] apprehension of bodily harm.” Richardson v. State, 
    79 N.E.3d 958
    , 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. Moreover, the amount of
    force used by the defendant must be proportionate to the urgency of the
    situation. Weedman v. State, 
    21 N.E.3d 873
    , 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
    denied (2015). Thus, when a person has used more force than necessary to repel
    an attack, the right to self-defense is extinguished, and the victim becomes the
    perpetrator. Hollowell v. State, 
    707 N.E.2d 1014
    , 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
    [11]   When a claim of self-defense finds support in the evidence, the State bears the
    burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements. 
    Id. The State
    may
    meet its burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the
    defendant did not act in self-defense, or by relying on the sufficiency of the case-
    in chief. Quinn v. State, 
    126 N.E.3d 924
    , 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). If a
    defendant is convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if
    no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated beyond a
    reasonable doubt. 
    Hollowell, 707 N.E.2d at 1021
    .
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 6 of 7
    [12]   Here, the record indicates that although Buchanan had initially asked Williams
    to fight, the two men never touched each other and simply engaged in a verbal
    altercation. Indeed, the record indicates that the situation had deescalated and
    that, at the time Williams fired the shots, Buchanan was walking away from
    Williams. Under the circumstances, the jury could reasonably conclude that
    Williams was not in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm and/or
    that Williams’s use of force was disproportionate to the urgency of the
    situation. The State presented sufficient evidence to negate Williams’s self-
    defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams’s level 6 felony criminal
    recklessness conviction is affirmed.
    [13]   Affirmed.
    May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1295 | December 18, 2019   Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19A-CR-1295

Filed Date: 12/18/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/18/2019