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