Yosef Abraham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

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