FILED
Oct 30 2017, 8:53 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stanley Williams, October 30, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1704-CR-672
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1607-F3-28635
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a bench trial, Stanley Williams was found guilty of failing to warn
persons at risk that he is a dangerous communicable disease carrier, a Level 6
felony. Williams raises a single issue on appeal which we restate as whether the
State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Concluding the
evidence is sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2004, Williams was diagnosed with AIDS and informed by a registered
nurse of his duty to warn all sexual partners of his diagnosis. The registered
nurse completed an “Adult HIV / AIDS Confidential Case Report” which
features, under “Section XI: Post-Test Counseling [,]” a question asking, “[h]as
this patient been told of their duty to warn all sex . . . partners of this HIV
statute prior to engaging in this behavior?” Exhibits Volume, Exhibit 1. The
box labeled “Yes” following this question was marked with an X to indicate the
patient had been informed.
[3] On December 16, 2010, Williams met with a care coordinator/licensed social
worker and signed a form titled “Duty to Warn” from the Indiana State
Department of Health-HIV Care Coordination program. Exhibits Vol., Ex. 1.
In relevant part, the paperwork stated, “[t]his form must be reviewed and signed
at each quarterly review. The duty to warn laws, or IC 16-41-7, state that one
must notify sex . . . partner(s) of his/her positive HIV or AIDS status prior to:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 9
[e]ngaging in any sexual acts . . .” Id. The form further explained that “[w]ith
my signature below, I attest that the responsibilities under the Duty to Warn
Laws in Indiana have been clearly explained to me.” Id.
[4] In 2014, Williams met R.B. and began engaging in sexual activity with her.
During this time, Williams never informed R.B. of his HIV status nor did they
use any form of prophylactic. During their relationship, R.B. never observed
Williams seek medical treatment or consume medication related to HIV.
[5] After a year, R.B. noticed strange marks on Williams’ back and urged him to
visit a doctor. Williams was soon diagnosed with Kaposi’s sarcoma, a type of
skin cancer connected to advanced HIV infection. Williams described the
strange marks to R.B. as cancer only and still did not inform R.B. of his HIV-
carrier status. Williams did suggest the use of prophylactics with R.B., but
despite this gesture, never began using prophylactics.
[6] In early 2016, R.B. found the medical discharge papers from Williams’ Kaposi
sarcoma diagnosis and discovered his HIV status. R.B. immediately visited a
hospital emergency center and tested positive for HIV.
[7] The State charged Williams with aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony, and
knowingly or intentionally failing to warn a person at risk he was a dangerous
communicable disease carrier, a Level 6 felony.1 At the bench trial, the State
1
Williams was found not guilty of aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 3 of 9
and Williams stipulated to the admission of State’s Exhibit 1 into evidence,
which included (1) a notarized Affidavit of Custodian of Business Records (2)
the Adult HIV/AIDS Confidential Case Report, and (3) the signed form titled
“Duty to Warn” from the Indiana State Department of Health. The medical
discharge papers found by R.B. were admitted at trial as State’s Exhibits 2
through 5. R.B. also testified concerning her sexual relationship with
Williams. After the bench trial, the trial court found Williams guilty of failure
to warn persons at risk he is a dangerous communicable disease carrier.
Williams now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[8] “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we
consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the
verdict.” Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
We do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility. Glenn v. State, 999
N.E.2d 859, 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “The conviction will be affirmed unless
no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). A conviction
will be reversed if there is no evidence to support any one of the necessary
elements of the offense. Macy v. State, 9 N.E.3d 249, 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 4 of 9
II. Failure to Warn
A. Statutory Authority
[9] Williams was found guilty of violating Indiana Code section 35-45-21-3(b),
which states that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally violates or fails to
comply with IC 16-41-7-1 commits a Level 6 felony.” In turn, Indiana Code
section 16-41-7-1 states:
(a) This section applies to the following dangerous
communicable diseases:
(1) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
(2) Human immunodeficiency virus.
***
(b) As used in this section, “high risk activity” means sexual . . .
contact that has been demonstrated epidemiologically to transmit
a dangerous communicable disease described in subsection (a).
(c) As used in this section, “person at risk” means:
(1) Past and present sexual . . . partners who may have
engaged in high risk activity; or
(2) Sexual . . . partners before engaging in high risk
activity;
with the carrier of a dangerous communicable disease described
in subsection (a).
(d) Carriers who know of their status as a carrier of a dangerous
communicable disease described in subsection (a) have a duty to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 5 of 9
warn or cause to be warned by a third party a person at risk of the
following:
(1) The carrier’s disease status.
(2) The need to seek health care such as counseling and
testing.
B. Proof of Failure to Comply
[10] To convict Williams of failing to warn a person at risk he was a dangerous
communicable disease carrier under Indiana Code section 35-45-21-3(b), the
State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he knowingly or
intentionally violated Indiana Code section 16-41-7-1. As defined by statute,
“[a] person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct,
he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).
[11] Williams asserts the State has failed to offer sufficient evidence that he
committed the failure to warn offense under Indiana Code section 35-45-21-3(b)
because the State did not prove he knowingly or intentionally violated Indiana
Code section 16-41-7-1. We disagree.
[12] First, Williams argues the State failed to provide evidence showing the Stanley
Williams named in State’s Exhibit 1 is the same Stanley Williams on trial. The
parties stipulated to the admission of State’s Exhibit 1. In relevant part, the
colloquy went as follows:
[State]: [Defense counsel] has stipulated that the
[Officer’s Arrest Report] will be the same
Stanley Williams that is reflected in State’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 6 of 9
Exhibit 1, which is a certified copy of the
Indiana State Department of Health records .
...
[Court]: [Defense counsel], is that correct? Is there a
stipulation between the parties?
[Defense Counsel]: Yes, Judge. And I will stipulate to that.
[Court]: All right. So we will show State’s Exhibit
Number 1 entered by stipulation of the
parties.
Transcript at 7-8.
[13] Williams admits the parties stipulated to this admission, but argues the evidence
does not permit the conclusion the Stanley Williams named in State’s Exhibit 1
is the same Stanley Williams on trial. However, the Adult HIV/AIDS
Confidential Case Report in State’s Exhibit 1 identified Stanley Williams as an
African American male born March 9, 1968. The medical paperwork found by
R.B., admitted as State’s Exhibit 2 through 5, also identifies Stanley Williams
as an African American male born March 9, 1968. Further, R.B. testified,
identifying Williams as the person she engaged in sexual activity with and
acknowledging she found the medical paperwork admitted as Exhibits 2
through 5 in Williams’ home. This is sufficient evidence for the trial court to
conclude the Stanley Williams on trial was the same Stanley Williams named
in Exhibit 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 7 of 9
[14] Finally, Williams does not challenge the evidence supporting his HIV-carrier
status, his knowledge of his HIV-carrier status, or that R.B. was a person at risk
whom he failed to warn before engaging in sexual activity. Rather, Williams
argues the State has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show Williams
knew of his duty to warn R.B. before engaging in sexual intercourse. 2 Again,
we disagree.
[15] At trial, the State presented evidence demonstrating Williams was informed at
least twice of his duty to inform—once on the day of his HIV diagnosis and
again in 2010—and his knowledge was confirmed by his signature on the Duty
to Warn form. This form stated that Williams had a duty to warn prior to
engaging in sexual contact and his signature verified that Indiana’s duty to warn
laws had been explained to him. The State presented sufficient evidence to
support Williams’ conviction for failing to warn sexual partners of his HIV-
carrier status.
Conclusion
2
Williams also asserts the information given to him did not inform him that his duty to warn sexual partners
of his HIV-carrier status “continue[d] indefinitely.” Brief of Appellant at 14. However, this argument
misreads the statute. Indiana Code section 16-41-7-1 imposes a duty to warn on those who have one of the
listed dangerous communicable diseases. The statute does not offer a time limitation on a carrier’s duty to
warn and states “[c]arriers who know of their status as a carrier of a dangerous communicable disease
described in subsection (a) have a duty to warn . . . .” Ind. Code § 16-41-7-1(d). Williams knew he had HIV;
therefore, he had a duty to warn R.B.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 8 of 9
[16] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Williams’ conviction for
failing to warn he was a dangerous communicable disease carrier. Williams’
conviction is therefore affirmed.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A04-1704-CR-672 | October 30, 2017 Page 9 of 9