Wallace Henderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A05-1605-CR-984

Wallace Henderson, a registered sex offender with prior failures to register, listed Wheeler Mission’s street address as his temporary residence while homeless and on parole during July–August 2015.
Wheeler Mission is a shelter that allows registered residents limited nights per month and requires daily in-person registration; its resident records are maintained in a computer system.
Deputy Rolley Ferguson testified Henderson reported to the Marion County Sheriff’s sex-offender registry weekly from July 13 through August 24, 2015, each time listing Wheeler’s street address.
Wheeler’s records showed Henderson was a resident only July 13–16; a Wheeler supervisor signed a Sheriff’s witness verification form stating Henderson had not been a resident since July 16, 2015.
Henderson was charged with multiple counts under Indiana Code § 11-8-8-17 for knowingly not residing at his registered address; the trial court admitted the witness verification form and convicted Henderson of one count (others merged or dismissed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of witness verification form	Form is admissible as business record reflecting Wheeler’s computerized resident logs	Form is hearsay and, as a law‑enforcement captioned form, should be excluded under public‑records exception for investigative reports	Admitted: court treated the content as Wheeler business records (Rule 803(6)), not law‑enforcement investigative observations, so no abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing failure to reside at registered address	State: testimony + Wheeler records and Henderson’s admission "I’m going back there" supported a reasonable inference he knowingly did not reside at Wheeler	Henderson: State failed to prove he did not actually stay around Wheeler (e.g., sleeping outside) and thus failed to prove knowing nonresidence	Affirmed: evidence and reasonable inferences support conviction; appellate court will not reweigh credibility
Alleged burden‑shifting by trial court during closing	State: no waiver; comments insufficient to show fundamental error	Henderson: trial court commented on his failure to testify, shifting burden	Waived: no contemporaneous objection and fundamental‑error claim raised first in reply brief, so forfeited

Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578 (Ind. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings and harmless‑error review)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to the judgment)
Perry v. State, 956 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (explaining exclusion of law‑enforcement investigative reports from public‑records hearsay exception)
Delarosa v. State, 938 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. 2010) (contemporaneous‑objection requirement; waiver of appellate review absent fundamental‑error showing)
Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. 2011) (appellate rule that fundamental‑error claims must be raised in principal brief, not first in reply)