Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 879S228,879S228 |
| Citation | 412 N.E.2d 1211,274 Ind. 578 |
| Parties | Carl Nathaniel WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Charles H. Graddick, Gary, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John K. Silk, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant and his wife, Diane Williams, were indicted by the Grand Jury of Lake County for conspiracy to commit murder, a class A felony, Ind.Code § 35-41-5-2 (Burns 1979). Both were convicted in a trial by jury, and appellant received a sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal he raises two issues:
(1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; and
(2) whether entrapment was present as a matter of law.
The evidence when viewed most favorably to the verdict discloses the following:
Appellant, his wife, and an undercover policeman posing as an illegal drug dealer were together in the dining room of appellant's house, when the wife discovered an article on the front page of a local newspaper written by one Alan Doyle which described her arrest and that of appellant on charges of being in possession of two stolen cars. She became angry and showed the article to appellant.
Appellant read the article for himself. His wife asked what he was going to do about the article. Appellant then said that he wanted something done about it and said very loudly, The policeman interjected that he ought to see a lawyer. The wife said lawyers would not do any good. Appellant agreed. He said that he was tired of dealing with lawyers.
The wife, wringing her hands, again asked appellant what he was going to do about the article. Appellant replied that he wanted the man shut up, and asked the undercover policeman whether he would undertake an extra service, and the policeman asked what he meant by that. Appellant replied that he wanted to stop this kind of malicious slander. The policeman said that just breaking their legs and arms would not shut them up. The wife agreed.
Appellant again asked the policeman if he would like to perform an extra service, and added Ms. Williams was standing at the time with her hand on her husband's shoulder.
The policeman said that he did not do such things himself but could put appellant in contact with somebody who would. He said further that such people require specific knowledge about the intended victim.
The wife stated that she knew someone down at the newspaper and gave the name. Appellant offered to go down to the newspaper himself. His wife discouraged him in that.
Appellant then got up and went to another part of the house and returned with a walkie-talkie radio which he gave to the policeman saying that it was a Gary police radio and would help him out. As the policeman prepared to leave he told them again that he needed to know specifics about the reporter. Ms. Williams said she could handle that and agreed to supply such information to him. The policeman then left with the radio, promising to contact them the next day.
Appellant was visited the following day by the undercover policeman who was accompanied by another policeman posing as a contract killer. The second officer had a body transmitter secreted on his person. It was agreed in a conversation that appellant would pay a total of $1000 for killing Alan Doyle and actually paid $500 at the time to the second officer and agreed to pay an additional $500 after the task was completed.
Several days later the policeman telephoned appellant and his wife. In this conversation which was also recorded the wife made a veiled and general statement in which she revealed that she knew the reporter was to be "taken care" of, and appellant made a statement which confirmed his obligation to get specific information about the reporter's habits.
Several days thereafter, appellant and the two undercover policemen drove through the city and appellant pointed out the building in which the reporter worked.
(1) In challenging the sufficiency of evidence appellant writes that the State's burden to show an agreement has not been met and that if an agreement is present, it
is between appellant and a police officer, and that the law will not permit a conviction under such circumstances. In resolving this issue, we do not resolve questions of credibility but look to the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict. Smith v. State (1970) 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 64, 291 N.E.2d 890; Glover v. State (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657. The statute defining the crime of conspiracy reads as follows:
(1) has not been prosecuted;
(2) has not been convicted;
(3) has been acquitted;
(4) has been convicted of a different crime;
(5) cannot be prosecuted for any reason; and
(6) lacked the capacity to commit the crime." Ind.Code § 35-41-5-2 (Burns 1979)
The question here is whether the evidence warranted the jury in concluding that appellant, with the intent to commit a homicide, agreed with another person to commit that offense. From the evidence recited above the trier of fact could have concluded that a scheme to kill Alan Doyle was formed around the dining room table in appellant's house when the article was first under discussion. Appellant, his wife, and the undercover officer were each participants in it. Appellant called for the killing of Doyle. Appellant's wife agreed to cooperate to accomplish that object by her assent and her offer to procure specific information regarding Doyle's habits. In so doing she clearly associated herself with the illegal plan. Appellant completed the offense, for both himself and his wife, when, on the day following the initial conversation, he delivered $500 to the undercover officer to perform the killing. This was an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. There was additional purposeful behavior in furtherance of the scheme, when appellant pointed out Doyle's work place to the police officer posing as the actual assassin. The evidence is sufficient to warrant the verdict of guilty.
Appellant appears to argue that the fact that one of the conspirators was a police officer should demonstrate conclusively the insufficiency of evidence or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townsend v. State
...N.E.2d 784, 786, 787; Maynard v. State (3d Dist.1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 5, 7. The most recent Supreme Court decision, Williams v. State (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 1211, is also inconclusive. Although it first appears the court recognized that the State can unilaterally raise an entrapment i......
-
Abner v. State
...agreed to a plan to kill her father. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. See Williams v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 578, 581-582, 412 N.E.2d 1211, 1214. Defendant also argues that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of aiding reckless homicide. Ess......
-
Everroad v. State
...of the efforts of the law enforcement agent or that the accused was predisposed to engage in such conduct anyway. Williams v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 1211; Hardin v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 635, 358 N.E.2d 134. On appeal, we will resolve the issues using the same standard that we appl......
-
Gray v. State
...law enforcement official involved or that the accused was ready, willing and able to engage in such conduct anyway. Williams v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 578, 412 N.E.2d 1211. In the present case, there was sufficient evidence that appellant was predisposed to commit the crimes thus supporting......