Williams v. State, 275S45
| Decision Date | 07 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 275S45,275S45 |
| Citation | 264 Ind. 441,346 N.E.2d 579 |
| Parties | Phillip Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
R. Kent Witte, Columbus, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was charged with the first-degree murder of Robert Anderson. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years' imprisonment.
The record discloses the following evidence: On the evening of January 26, 1974, the decedent and the appellant attended a party along with several mutual friends. During the course of the party a fight occurred between one Jack Wilson, the decedent and one Daniel Holmes. After this incident occurred the appellant arrived and stated that he was going to whip both Holmes and the decedent because they had beat up on his friend Jack Wilson. Appellant then produced a baseball bat, whereupon the decedent threw a brick in the direction of the appellant. Appellant then got back in his car and stated he was going home and get his gun and, 'I'm gonna kill you all.' Shortly thereafter the appellant returned, got out of his car and shouted, A shot was then fired by the appellant which struck the decedent in the head killing him.
Police officers arrived simultaneously at the scene and captured the appellant without incident. The decedent's thirty ought six rifle was found lying on the ground near his body. Witnesses to the two altercations which eventually led to decedent's death were friends of the decedents and of the appellants. Testimony does not agree in the detail as to who said what and who did what at any particular time.
Appellant first contends that the verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence in view of the issue of self defense. It is appellant's contention that he was without fault, was in a place where he had a right to be and that his action was a result of the immediate threat of danger of his person on the part of the decedent.
From the facts which were presented to the jury in this case, we would observe that he is in error on all three counts. He was at the party, had an altercation with the decedent and left. He had no duty to return. Nevertheless, he chose to arm himself and return with the stated purpose of killing the decedent. Although it was shown by the evidence that the decedent was also armed, it was he who had remained in a place where he had the right to be. It was the appellant who was approaching him, armed, with threats to kill. The jury could well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. State, 1--976A168
...whom they chose to believe and reject the conflicting testimony from witnesses they feel have lower credibility. Williams v. State (1976), Ind., 346 N.E.2d 579. A review of the record reveals ample evidence upon which the jury could reach the verdict which it did. We find the defendants' co......
-
Beasley v. State
...prerogative of the jury to believe that version presented by the State and to disbelieve that presented by the defendant. Williams v. State, (1976) Ind., 346 N.E.2d 579; Winston v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 8, 323 N.E.2d ISSUE II At the close of evidence defendant tendered certain instructions......
-
Sypniewski v. State
...to believe whomever they choose, and to disregard the testimony of witnesses they do not believe in a homicide case. Williams v. State, (1976) Ind., 346 N.E.2d 579, 581. Lay testimony, including opinions, is competent on the issue of sanity. Williams v. State, (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 733, 7......
-
Johnson v. State
...Court will not disturb the jury's findings of fact so long as there is evidence in the record to support those findings. Williams v. State (1976), Ind., 346 N.E.2d 579. The record in the case at bar contains sufficient facts as above recited to support the findings of the The judgment of th......