Court of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 1 of 7 

### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D) , this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the de fense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case

. A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Joel M. Schumm Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Benjamin J. Shoptaw Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indian a


### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Domeneque Williams , Appella nt
- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff December 18, 2019 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 19A

- CR

- 1295 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Stan ley Kroh, Magistr ate Tr ial Court Cause No. 49G03

- 1803

- F5

- 8574

Crone , Judge .Court of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 7 

### Case Summary
[1] Domeneque Will iams appe als hi s conviction for level 6 felony crim ina l
re cklessness. The sole iss ue prese nted for our review is wh e ther the State present ed sufficien t evidence to suppor t W illiams ’ s conviction a nd to rebut his claim of self

- defense

. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm. 

### Facts and Procedur al Histor y [2] O n March 8, 2018, Will iams and his girlf riend, Sariy ah Stephens , were at Stephens ’ s Indianapolis apartment where they arg ued and were involved in a

“ tuss l[e]

. ” Tr. Vol. 2 at 149. When Stephen s ’ s brother, Jo h n B uchanan , and his g irlfriend, Daeja Pinkins, l ater arrive d at the apartment , Buchanan noti ced that his sister was crying an d had scratches on her. A fter W illiams lef t the apartment, Stephens told Buchanan that she and Will iams had gotten into a fight. Buc hanan was mad that Williams “ put his hands on ” h is sister , so he went looking for Will iams and located him outs ide the apartment

. Id . T he two men got “ right in eac h other [ ’ ] s face ” and Buchanan twice asked Will i a ms to fight

. Id

. Will iams refused to fight, and neither man touched the other.

[3] At some point during this v erbal altercation, Will iams stepped back, pulled out

a hand gun , and cocke d it behind his back. Ste phens and Pi nkins had come outside and tried to calm the men down

. Buchanan, Stephens, and Pinkins began wal king down a stair wa y , with Will iams follow ing behin d them

. Bu chana n and Williams continued to exchange words. Buchan an said, “ Bro , you just pul led a gun out o n me , ” and, “ W ell you should have used it if youCourt of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 3 of 7 pulled it out, you should have used it, that ’ s what you got your gun for. ” Id . at 151. W ill iams rep lied, “ We ll, I will use [my gun ]. ” Id

. Williams then fired
t wo shots into t he air and lef t t he apartment complex

. Buchanan went back to S tephens ’ s apartment and called the police. Police found two 9

- mi llimeter shell casings in the parking lo t of the apartment comple x.
[4] T h e State char ged Williams with level 5 fel ony int imidation, l e vel 6 felon y
s tr a ngulation , level 6 felony d omestic battery, level 6 felony poin ting a firearm, level 6 felony criminal reck lessness, class A misdeme anor dom estic ba ttery, class A misdemeanor b attery, an d class A misdemeanor theft. Fol lowin g a jury trial , the jury f oun d Will iams g uilty 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 co mmuni ty service and 18 0 days of pr obation

. This appeal ensued. 

### Disc ussion and Decision Section 1

– The State p resented sufficient evidence t hat Williams created a subst antial risk of bodily injury to another pers on . [5] Williams first challenges the suf ficiency of the evidence to support h is conviction

. When reviewing a clai m of insufficient ev idence, we neither
rewe igh the evidence nor assess witness cre d ibility. Bell v. State , 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (In d. 2015) . W e lo o k to the evi dence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if t here is probative
ev idence from which a re asonable factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

. In sh ort, if the testimony believed by theCourt of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 4 of 7 trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the revie wing court will not disturb it. Id . at 500

.
[6] T o prove level 6 felony c riminal recklessness , the State was r equired t o prove that , while armed with a deadly weap on , Will iams recklessly , know ingly, or intentiona lly performed a n act that cr eated a substantial risk of bo dily injury to another person

. Ind

. Code § 35

- 42

- 2

- 2 (b)(1)(A)

. Williams challenges solely the State ’ s proof as to whether his acti ons c reate s a “ subst antial risk of bo dily injury to another person. ” Id

.
[7] Will iam s co nce d es that h e pulled out a hand gun and “ shot tw ice in to the air while in an apartment buil ding parking l ot. ” Appellant ’ s Br. at 8. He further conced es that the evidence d emonstrated that there were at least a few individuals in th e vicinity , as well a s fiv e vehicles par ked in the lot

. Still, he clai ms that the risk of bodily injury to another person here was “ in substant ia l. ” Id

. We disagree.

[8] Will iams likens his case to Elli o tt v. State , 56 0 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 199 0)

. In Elli ott , another pa nel of this Court determined that the defendant ’ s cel ebratory act of firing shot s “ upwards at app roximat ely a 1 0 degree angle ” t oward uninhabited fields and woodlan ds a dja cent to the edge of his u sed car lot located “ on the outskirts of Greenf ield ” d id not c reate a substantial risk of bodily injury to anoth er person beca use the ev ide nce d emons trated that “ there
were no people in or near his line of fire. ” Id . at 1267

. I n contrast, t he ev idence h ere de monstrated that several people were i n o r near Williams ’ s li ne of fire

.Court of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Un like in Elliott , Will ia ms did not simply fire shots in the direction of an undisputedly uninhabi ted are a ; he fi red shots up in the air while Buchanan, P inkins , and Stephens were all nearby. A reaso nab le jur or c ou ld infer that a ny
on e of the bullets could have come down and struck one of those individuals, or easily ricocheted off o ne of the parked v ehicle s or the two

- story apar tment building and struck one of th ose individuals

. Indeed, officers fou nd two shell
ca sings in the parking lot next to vehicles

. This evidence is s ufficient to support a conclusion that Will iams ’ s behavior created a substan t ial risk of bodily injury to another person. See Woods v. State , 768 N.E.2d 1024 , 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) ( fi nding s ufficient evidence of substantial risk of i njury to others because shots were fired in r es ide nti al are a and not im prob able that b ull et could have ric och eted and struck nearby people)

. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Williams ’ s convict ion for level 6 felony criminal reck lessness. 

### Section 2

– The State presented suffic ient evidence to reb ut Wi ll iams ’ s se lf - defense claim.
[9] Wi lliams maintains that, even assuming the Sta te presented sufficient evide nce t o su pport his convic ti on , the convic ti on cannot stand because the S tate failed to rebut his self

- defense claim. The standard of review for a chall enge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim of self

- defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency claim. W ilson v. State , 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002)

. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of wit nesses . Id

. If there is sufficient evidence of probative v alu e to support t he conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be dis turbed. Id

.Court of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 6 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. 20 13) , trans. denied

. Ind iana Code Se ction 35

- 41

- 3

- 2 (c) provides that “ [a] person is justi fied in using reasonable force against an y other perso n to protect the person ... from w hat the person

r easonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. ” To prevail on his self

- de fense claim, Will i ams w as 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] appreh ension of bodily harm.” Richardson v. State , 79 N.E.3d 958, 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) , trans. denied . M or eover, t he amount of force used by the defendant must be proportionate to the urgency of the situ ati on. Weedman v. St ate , 21 N.E .3d 873, 89 2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) , trans. denied (2015)

. Thus, when a person has us ed more force t han 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 burde n of negatin g 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 chi ef

. 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

n o r easonable pe rson could say that self

- defense was neg ated beyond a reasonable doubt. Hollowell , 707 N.E.2d at 1021

.Court of Ap peals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 129 5 | December 18, 2019 Page 7 of 7 [12] H ere, t he re c ord indicates that although Buchan an had init ially asked Will iams to fight, the two men never touched each other and simply engaged in a verb al altercat ion

. Indeed, the record indicates that the situation had deescalated and that , at the t ime Will iams fi re d the shots, Buchanan was walki ng away from Will iams . Under the circumstances, the jury could reasonably conclude that Williams was not in reasonable fear o r apprehension of bodily harm and/or that Williams ’ s use of force was disp roportio nat e to the urg ency of the situation

. The State presented sufficient evidence to negate W illiam s ’ s self

defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt

. Willia ms ’ s level 6 fe lony criminal reck lessness conviction is affirmed.

[13] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.