Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1759 | June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

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

Timothy J. Burns 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney Geneneral 

Karl M. Scharnberg 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Yosef Abraham, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

June 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

49A05-1510-CR-1759 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Amy Jones 

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 2 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 3 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 4 of 4

[6] Affirmed. 

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