Attorney for Appellant
Charles E. Stewart, JR., Esq.
Crown Point, IN
Attorneys for Appellee
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson
Attorney General of Indiana
Christopher L. Lafuse
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN
IN THE
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
CARLOS K. WILLIAMS,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
)
) Supreme Court No.
) 45S00-0002-CR-130
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable James L. Clement, Judge
Cause No. 45G04-9905-CF-00079
ON DIRECT APPEAL
June 28, 2001
SULLIVAN, Justice.
Defendant Carlos Williams was convicted of murder for his
participation in the shooting death of another man. We find that the
testimony of two eyewitnesses was sufficient evidence to support his
conviction.
Background
The facts most favorable to the verdict indicate that on May 5, 1999,
at a house in Gary, Indiana, an argument erupted between the victim, Amondo
Nelson, and Ramar Daniels. After the confrontation, Nelson left with
Anthony Holden and Eric Madry. As they were leaving, Daniels told Nelson
that he was going to kill him.
Later that day Nelson and Holden were sitting in their car in front
of another residence. Madry was standing behind the car speaking with
Norman Richardson. Defendant drove up with Daniels in the passenger seat.
Defendant and Daniels exited their car and approached Holden’s car,
Defendant approaching on the driver’s side while Daniels approached from
the passenger side. Defendant opened the driver’s side door and said,
“[w]hat was up with that shit with my little brother earlier.” Daniels
then leaned into the passenger side and shot Nelson seven or eight times
with a .32 caliber automatic. Defendant then shot Nelson four times.
Defendant and Daniels then fled. Nelson died from multiple gunshot wounds
to the chest and abdomen. In all, he was struck ten times.
Defendant was convicted of Murder,[1] and sentenced to 55 years
imprisonment.
Discussion
Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict
him of murder. Appellant’s Br. at 5. Defendant argues, “[t]he alleged
eyewitness’ testimony was inherently unreliable and the investigation by
the Gary Police Department failed to establish that the [D]efendant had
murdered the victim... .” Id.
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the Court neither
reweighs the evidence nor assesses the credibility of the witnesses. See
Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind. 2001); Chambliss v. State, 746
N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind. 2001). We look to the evidence most favorable to the
verdict and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm the
conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable jury
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
We find here that there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant
guilty of murder. Richardson testified that Defendant and Daniels drove up
in a car, approached the victim and shot him multiple times. He testified
that Daniels shot eight to nine shots into the car from the passenger side,
and Defendant shot three or four shots into the car from the drivers side.
Madry testified that he was sitting in the back seat of the car on the
driver’s side. He testified that he saw Defendant approach and open the
driver’s side front door. (Id.) He then heard nine to ten shots coming
from the passenger side. Madry testified that he ran away, and “heard like
four more shots” that sounded like they were from a different gun.
The physical evidence matches the eyewitness accounts. The police
found bullet casing from both a .32 caliber handgun and a .45 caliber
handgun. The bullet holes in Nelson’s body were of two different sizes.
Defendant argues that the police investigation was insufficient.
Appellant’s Br. at 7. The State, however, provided two eyewitness accounts
that were consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. This
was more than sufficient to find defendant guilty of murder. See Brasher,
746 N.E.2d at 72 (“It is well established that the testimony of a single
eye witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”) Anderson v. State,
469 N.E.2d 1166, 1169 (Ind. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1226 (1985). And
though Defendant challenges the credibility of the witnesses, it was within
the jury’s province to judge the credibility of each witness. See
Chambliss, 746 N.E.2d at 73; Garland v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1236, 1238 (Ind.
1999), reh’g denied.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
-----------------------
[1] Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (1998).