Yosef Abraham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 15, 2016
• Docket: 49A05-1510-CR-1759
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 15 2016, 8:09 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney Geneneral

Karl M. Scharnberg Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Yosef Abraham, June 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1510-CR-1759 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy Jones Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1410-CM-48485

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1759 | June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Yosef Abraham challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

conviction for public nudity. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Three police officers were in a gas station in Speedway when Abraham, who

was completely nude, walked in and started yelling “I’ll kill you,” among other

things. Tr. p. 9. The officers arrested Abraham, and the State later charged

him with public nudity with the intent to be seen by another person. See Ind.

Code § 35-45-4-1.5(c). At a bench trial, Abraham testified that he was

“stressed” about his son, that he was suicidal, that he left his house “to find

some help or assistance,” that he entered the gas station hoping the officers

would “save [his] life,” and that he had no intention of being nude in front of

people but did not have “time to think about that.” Tr. p. 22-23. The trial court

nonetheless found Abraham guilty, explaining, “I don’t find this testimony to

be credible and I find it to be self-serving on behalf of the defendant.” Id. at 25.

The trial court placed Abraham on probation and, pursuant to the State’s

request, ordered him to have a mental health evaluation.

[3] Abraham now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1759 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [4] Abraham contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support

his conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a

conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the judgment. Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705, 716 (Ind. Ct. App.

2015), trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness

credibility. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the

judgment. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It

is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be

drawn from it to support the verdict. Id.

[5] In order to convict Abraham of public nudity as a Class B misdemeanor, the

State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1) knowingly or

intentionally appeared in a public place in a state of nudity and (2) did so with

the intent to be seen by another person. See I.C. § 35-45-4-1.5(c). Abraham

concedes that he appeared in a public place in a state of nudity, but he argues

that he did not do so knowingly or with the intent to be seen by another person.

Relying on his own testimony, he asserts that he “may have been experiencing

a type of psychotic episode” and “had no time to think of himself as being nude

when he left his home.” Appellant’s Br. p. 9. However, the trial court

determined that Abraham’s explanation was not credible, and we will not

reassess witness credibility. See Wilson, 39 N.E.3d at 716.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1759 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 [6] Affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1759 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4