WILLS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] David M. Wills (“Wills”) appeals, following a bench trial, his conviction for Class A misdemeanor trespass.¹ Wills argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there was sufficient evidence supporting Wills’ trespass conviction.

Facts

[3] In March 2023, Eskenazi Hospital Security Officer Jesse Williams (“Officer Williams”) was working security at Eskenazi Hospital (“the hospital”). Officer Williams saw Wills trying to “gain access” to the hospital “through the ambulance bay.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Officer Williams asked Wills if he needed medical attention, and Wills replied that he did. Officer Williams walked Wills to the front of the hospital and told him to check in with the nurses to get medical treatment. Officer Williams then returned to his security checkpoint.

[4] About five to ten minutes later, Officer Williams saw Wills standing near a wheelchair vestibule by the security checkpoint. Officer Williams walked up to Wills again, and Wills told Officer Williams that he “did not want to get treatment” and “was just hanging out.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Officer Williams told Wills that he was trespassing and handed him a trespass notification card. The card explained that “unless [Wills] [was] seeking medical attention or picking up medications or there for a visit,” he was not allowed to be on the hospital property. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Officer Williams asked Wills to leave the hospital, and Wills did so.

[5] Two or three hours later, Officer Williams saw Wills on the hospital property. Officer Williams approached Wills, who was at the emergency room checkpoint, and asked Wills if he was at the hospital to get medical treatment. Wills responded that he was not and that he was “just hanging out” and “wanted to use the phone.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 35). Officer Williams asked if Wills still had the trespass card that he had given Wills earlier that day. Wills said that he did. Officer Williams told Wills that he could not be at the hospital and directed him to leave. Wills told Officer Williams to arrest him and placed his hands behind his back. Officer Williams placed Wills under arrest.

[6] The State charged Wills with Class A misdemeanor trespass. In July 2024, the trial court held a bench trial where it heard the facts as set forth above. Officer Williams testified at the bench trial. When the State asked Officer Williams if Wills appeared to be intoxicated or under the influence, Officer Williams responded, “[n]ot to me.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 37). When the State asked Officer Williams if Wills had smelled like alcohol, Officer Williams responded, “[n]ot that I can recall.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44).

[7] Wills testified in his own defense. Wills testified that he had been “seeking medical attention” at the hospital because he had been “overly intoxicated[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40). Wills also testified that he had “f[allen] somewhere along the way and [had] injured [his] shoulder[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40). Wills testified that he had been “in intense pain.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40). Wills further testified that, when he had returned to the hospital, he had not realized that he had been trespassed. Wills’ counsel asked Wills if he had been seeking help when he had returned to the hospital the second time, and he responded, “Yes[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 40).

[8] The State recalled Officer Williams to the stand. The State asked Officer Williams if Wills had appeared intoxicated or if Wills had told him about a shoulder injury during the first interaction, and Officer Williams said, “[n]o.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44). The State also asked Officer Williams if, during the second interaction, Wills had told him that he had been physically injured or seeking medical attention, and Officer Williams responded that Wills had not. The State also asked Officer Williams if, during the second interaction, Wills had appeared to be intoxicated or physically injured, and Officer Williams replied, “[n]o.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44).

[9] The trial court found Wills guilty of Class A misdemeanor trespass. The trial court sentenced Wills to 365 days at the adult detention center, with 363 days suspended to probation.

[10] Wills now appeals.

Decision

[11] Wills argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting his Class A misdemeanor trespass conviction. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims trigger a deferential standard of review in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (cleaned up). “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). “In conducting that review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id.

[12] Indiana Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(1) provides that “[a] person who ․ not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent ․ commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.”

[13] The evidence presented during the bench trial is sufficient to support Wills’ conviction. The evidence presented reveals that Officer Williams, after determining that Wills was not seeking medical attention and was “just hanging out[,]” trespassed him from the hospital and advised him not to return. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Later that day, Officer Williams saw Wills at the hospital, confirmed that Wills was not seeking medical attention, and then arrested Wills for trespassing. The evidence presented during the bench trial reveals that Wills, after being asked not to return by Officer Williams, had returned to the hospital property.

[14] Wills argues that he had only returned to the hospital to seek medical attention. In support of this argument, he cites to his own testimony at trial. The trial court's guilty verdict indicates that the trial court, as factfinder, considered this testimony and rejected it. Wills’ argument is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence and reassess the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244.

[15] Based on our review of the evidence presented at the bench trial, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found Wills guilty of Class A misdemeanor trespass. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2.

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.