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
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
CARLOS K. WILLIAMS,
Appellant (Defendant below),
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below ).
) Supreme Court No.
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable James L. Clement, Judge
Cause No. 45G04-9905-CF-00079
ON DIRECT APPEAL
June 28, 2001
Defendant Carlos Williams was convicted of murder for his participation in the shoo
death of another man. We find that the testimony of two eyewitnesses
was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
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 res
idence. 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 Holdens car, Defendant approaching on the
drivers side while Daniels approached from the passenger side. Defendant opened the
drivers 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,
and sentenced to 55 years imprisonment.
Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of murder.
Appellants 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 drivers side. He test
ified that he saw Defendant approach
and open the drivers 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 ca
from both a .32 caliber handgun and a .45 caliber handgun. The
bullet holes in Nelsons body were of two different sizes.
Defendant argues that the police investigation was insufficient. Appellants 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 jurys 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), rehg denied.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (1998).