ABDULRAHMAN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In this appeal, Harith Abdulrahman (“Abdulrahman”) argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 6 felony pointing a firearm at another person.¹ To convict Abdulrahman, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Abdulrahman knowingly or intentionally pointed a firearm at Ernest Watkins, Jr. (“Ernest”) and/or Ernest's son, Samuel Watkins (“Samuel”). See Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3; (State's App. Vol. 2 at 2).

[2] Testimony at the February 2025 bench trial revealed that on November 15, 2023, Ernest was driving southbound on Interstate 69 in Johnson County. Samuel was in the passenger's seat. Ernest and Samuel were in the left lane passing a semi-truck when Ernest noticed a black Mercedes (“the black Mercedes”) behind him that was “whipping in and out [of traffic] and then ran right up on [him] and [he was] like whoa.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 9). The black Mercedes was so close to Ernest that he could not see the vehicle's headlights.

[3] When Ernest was able to pass the semi-truck and move to the right lane, the driver of the black Mercedes pulled up next to Ernest, rolled “completely down” the passenger's side window, and pointed a firearm at Ernest and Samuel. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). Ernest, who was “100% certain” that the driver had pointed a firearm at him, saw the driver's face “as clear as day” and identified the driver as Abdulrahman. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18, 16). Samuel saw the driver point the firearm but did not see the driver's face. Abdulrahman then sped away. Ernest followed Abdulrahman, obtained the black Mercedes’ license plate number, and called 911. When a Johnson County Sheriff's Office sergeant (“the sergeant”) subsequently stopped Abdulrahman, the sergeant found a firearm in a holster on Abdulrahman's right hip. At trial, Abdulrahman testified that he had not pointed a firearm at Ernest and/or Samuel.

[4] Abdulrahman argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because “[a]lthough two witnesses testified that they observed a firearm pointed from a passing vehicle, their ability to make such an observation is questionable given the circumstances: both vehicles were in motion at highway speeds, and [Abdulrahman]’s vehicle was equipped with dark tinted windows.” (Abdulrahman's Amended Br. 5). However, Abdulrahman's argument amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we will not do. See Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024). After weighing the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Abdulrahman had pointed a firearm at Ernest and/or Samuel. Accordingly, we affirm Abdulrahman's conviction for Level 6 felony pointing a firearm at another person.

[5] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3. The trial court also convicted Abdulrahman of Class C misdemeanor reckless driving. See Ind. Code § 9-21-8-52. Although Abdulrahman states in his appellate brief that he is appealing his convictions, he makes no argument challenging the Class C misdemeanor conviction. Therefore, any challenge to that conviction is waived.

Pyle, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.