Derrick Morris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 09 2015, 9:28 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Patricia Caress McMath Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Derrick Morris, March 9, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1408-CR-544
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 49F10-1403-CM-13602
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Derrick Morris was found guilty of class C misdemeanor public nudity. He
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and claims
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-544 | March 9, 2015 Page 1 of 4
that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of intoxication. Finding that the
evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and that any error in the
admission of intoxication evidence was harmless, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 15, 2014, Officer Todd Scroggins with the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department was working undercover, “looking for homeless people
engaged in drinking, lewd behavior and disorderly conduct.” Tr. at 9. At
around 10:00 p.m., Officer Scroggins was in his unmarked police car when he
observed Morris standing near a building in the 800 block of North Illinois
Street. The officer got out of his vehicle and approached Morris. As the officer
got closer, he saw that Morris was holding his penis in one hand and urinating.
Morris was subsequently arrested and charged with class C misdemeanor public
nudity. After a bench trial, the trial court found Morris guilty as charged. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Section I. The evidence was sufficient to support Morris’s
conviction.
[3] Morris claims that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction of
public nudity. When reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d
343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “We consider only the evidence most favorable
to the trial court’s ruling and affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-544 | March 9, 2015 Page 2 of 4
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (quoting Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012)) (quotation marks
omitted).
[4] A person commits class C misdemeanor public nudity when he “knowingly or
intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity.” Ind. Code § 35-45-
4-1.5. Nudity is defined as the “showing of the human male or female genitals,
pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering.” Ind. Code § 35-
45-4-1(d). Morris acknowledges that he was in a public place, but he argues
that he was not nude because he did not “show his penis” and that his hand
was holding his penis and thus acted as an “opaque covering.” Appellant’s Br.
at 3, 5.
[5] In support of his argument, Morris cites Townsend v. State, 750 N.E.2d 416, 417
(Ind. App. Ct. 2001), in which we held that the evidence was insufficient to
support Townsend’s conviction for public indecency (now defined as public
nudity) because the officer did not see the defendant’s penis after he urinated on
a building. Here, however, Officer Scroggins testified that he “saw [Morris’s]
penis in his right hand” and that “[t]here was nothing covering it, nothing in the
way.” Tr. at 8. In sum, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Morris knowingly or intentionally showed his penis in a public
place. Cf. Townsend, 750 N.E.2d at 418 (“Townsend did not cause his penis to
be seen or otherwise put it on view.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-544 | March 9, 2015 Page 3 of 4
Section II. Any error in the admission of intoxication
evidence was harmless.
[6] Finally, Morris argues that the trial court erred when it admitted Officer
Scroggins’s testimony that he exhibited signs of intoxication. We review a trial
court’s admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion and will
reverse if the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we
will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Jackson v. State,
996 N.E.2d 378, 382-83 (Ind. App. Ct., 2013) (citation omitted), trans. denied
(2014).
[7] Morris argues that the testimony regarding his intoxication was irrelevant
because he was not charged with public intoxication. But he does not
specifically contend that the admission of the evidence was reversible error, and
we would not find it to be such in light of the overwhelming evidence that he
showed his penis in a public place. See Ind. Trial Rule 61 (“[N]o error in either
the admission or the exclusion of evidence … is ground for reversal on appeal…
unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with
substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard
any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights
of the parties.”). Therefore, we affirm his conviction.
[8] Affirmed.
Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1408-CR-544 | March 9, 2015 Page 4 of 4