MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 23 2018, 10:41 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
Andrew R. Falk Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryan L. Williams, August 23, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-739
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephenie LeMay-
Appellee-Plaintiff Luken, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D05-1710-CM-1428
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 1 of 6
[1] Bryan Williams appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion of
privacy. He contends that the State failed to sufficiently rebut his mistake-of-
fact defense.
[2] We affirm.
Discussion & Decision
[3] Despite being divorced for several years, Lisa Wuerdeman and Williams lived
together in 2017. Their relationship was marred by domestic violence. On or
about October 17, 2017, Wuerdeman hurriedly departed the residence because
she was scared of Williams, leaving a significant amount of property at the
home. She obtained an ex parte order of protection (the Protective Order)
against Williams that same afternoon.
[4] In the meantime, Williams sent a few text messages to Wuerdeman around
9:00 p.m. regarding the property she left behind. He noted that he could not
believe all that she had left and indicated that he would give to Goodwill
whatever he did not want. Wuerdeman did not respond to the messages.
[5] Williams was personally served with the Protective Order at 11:00 p.m., which
prohibited him from, among other things, directly or indirectly communicating
with Wuerdeman. The deputies serving the Protective Order gave Williams
thirty minutes to gather his things and leave the home. Williams then drove to
his mother’s residence and slept in his vehicle with his dog.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 2 of 6
[6] At 5:35 a.m., Williams sent a text message to Wuerdeman. He stated, “You
need go [sic] get your stuff”. Exhibits at State’s Exhibit 3. Wuerdeman
contacted the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department to report the
unauthorized contact. Deputy Andrew Thomas spoke with Williams later that
day. Williams was verbally aggressive with the deputy but acknowledged being
served with the Protective Order the previous night. Williams then indicated
that he had mistakenly sent the text message to Wuerdeman when he was
actually attempting to send a Facebook message to a friend. Deputy Thomas
questioned him about how he could mix up both the names and apps involved,
and Williams could not give him an answer.
[7] On October 23, 2017, the State charged Williams with Class A misdemeanor
invasion of privacy. At his bench trial on February 20, 2018, Williams
acknowledged that he sent a text message to Wuerdeman, but he claimed that it
was sent to her by mistake. Williams testified that he intended to send the
message to Ralph, who had a trailer in Williams’s backyard. Williams blamed
the mistake on not wearing his “cheaters” (i.e., glasses) when sending the
message. Transcript at 17. He then emphasized, “I know to leave her alone.”
Id. at 18. In rebuttal, Wuerdeman testified that Williams sent her another text
message on October 21, 2017, asking her to call him. This message was entered
into evidence as State’s Exhibit 4, as she still had it on her phone. Williams
denied sending this second message.
[8] At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Williams guilty as
charged and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. The court specifically stated,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 3 of 6
“I do not believe you …contacted … Wuerdeman by mistake, I believe you did
it intentionally.” Id. at 27. Williams now appeals, arguing that the State failed
to sufficiently rebut his mistake-of-fact defense.
Discussion & Decision
[9] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State,
51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is
probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[10] The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams
knowingly or intentionally violated the protective order. See Ind. Code § 35-46-
1-15.1. Williams acknowledges that the State presented sufficient evidence in
its case in chief that he committed invasion of privacy. He argues, however,
that the State failed to overcome his testimony regarding mistake of fact.
[11] Ind. Code § 35-41-3-17 provides: “It is a defense that the person who engaged in
the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the
mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.” When
the State has made a prima facie case of guilt, the burden shifts to the defendant
to establish an evidentiary predicate of his mistaken belief of fact. Chavers v.
State, 991 N.E.2d 148, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “The State,
however, retains the ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 4 of 6
every element of the charged crime, including culpability or intent, which
would in turn entail proof that there was no reasonably held mistaken belief of
fact.” Id. at 151-52. “The State may meet its burden by directly rebutting
evidence, by affirmatively showing that the defendant made no such mistake, or
by simply relying upon evidence from its case-in-chief.” Id. at 152.
[12] Williams’s mistake-of-fact defense is based on his own self-serving claim that he
intended to send the message to his friend, not Wuerdeman. Of course, the trial
court was not required to believe him. See id. (“Any conflict in the evidence
was for the trier of fact, the trial judge in this case, to resolve, and we will not
disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations on appeal.”). In addition to
the trial court’s express disbelief of Williams’s story, we observe that a review of
the record reveals that the text message in question was a natural continuation
of the messages Wuerdeman sent his ex-wife the previous evening before
receiving notice of the Protective Order. Further, the State presented rebuttal
evidence that Williams contacted Wuerdeman again via text message three
days later, asking her to call him.1 This evidence was submitted to impeach
Williams’s claim that he only texted Wuerdeman once by accident.
1
Embedded within his sufficiency argument, Williams asserts that admission of this second message into
evidence amounted to fundamental error. Then, without setting out the stringent fundamental error
standard, he discusses a newly-alleged discovery violation regarding this impeachment evidence and a case
having nothing to do with fundamental error. Williams has wholly failed to establish fundamental error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[13] We reject Williams’s invitation to judge his credibility and reweigh the
evidence. The State presented ample evidence in support of the conviction.
[14] Judgment affirmed.
[15] Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-739 | August 23, 2018 Page 6 of 6