PETERSON III v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Solomon Peterson, III appeals his convictions for Level 6 felony sexual battery and Class B misdemeanor public nudity, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support these convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the afternoon of September 18, 2024, Peryis Blain disembarked from an IndyGo bus at a stop on 34th and Meridian Street, located near a school. Blain saw Peterson standing in front of an unconscious woman, later identified as G.B., sitting on a bench. Peterson was exposing his genitals, and his buttocks were visible. Blain believed Peterson was “trying to, uh, assault the lady[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 199.

[3] When Blain looked at Peterson again to confirm his suspicions, Peterson “tried to hurry up and cover hisself [sic] up[.]” Id. Peterson proceeded to pull up his pants, walk around, and pretend to speak to the unresponsive G.B. to appear “discreet” and “incognito[.]” Id. at 208, 209. Blain alerted a bus driver to the situation then left the bus stop and called 9-1-1. Blain was concerned that children getting out of the nearby school or other passersby may see Peterson.

[4] Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) Officers Tristen Grantham and Cullain Reneski responded to the scene and observed Peterson sitting next to G.B. with his pants below his buttocks. Officer Grantham saw Peterson had inserted his whole hand up “to his wrist” down the front of G.B.’s pants. Id. at 248. Peterson was making “small circular movements” with his hand. Id. When Officer Reneski approached, Peterson “quickly pulled up his pants[.]” Id. at 216. As he did so, Officer Reneski saw Peterson's “entire bare buttocks.” Id. Peterson initially provided a false name to law enforcement before Officer Reneski properly identified Peterson. Peterson and G.B. were taken to separate hospitals and law enforcement later arrested Peterson.

[5] The State charged Peterson with Level 6 felony sexual battery, Class A misdemeanor public indecency, and Class B misdemeanor public nudity. A jury trial was held in January 2025. At trial, the State admitted surveillance footage that depicted the incident on September 18. G.B. did not testify. The jury found Peterson guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Peterson to serve an aggregate sentence of 730 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Peterson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Peterson challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions for Level 6 felony sexual battery and Class B misdemeanor public nudity.¹ Our standard of review is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted). “A verdict may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone if that evidence supports a reasonable inference of guilt.” Shields v. State, 248 N.E.3d 1246, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

I. Sexual Battery

[7] Peterson argues the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of Level 6 felony sexual battery. To convict Peterson of Level 6 felony sexual battery as charged, the State had to prove that Peterson “with intent to arouse or satisfy [Peterson's] own sexual desires or the sexual desire of another person: ․ touche[d] another person's genitals ․ when that person is unaware that the touching is occurring. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-8(a)(2) (2014).²

[8] Peterson challenges the touching element, claiming the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he touched G.B.’s genitals. Specifically, he notes his hand was obscured inside G.B.’s pants, and it was not visible to witnesses or on the surveillance footage. But as the State notes, it presented evidence that Peterson inserted his hand up “to his wrist” into G.B.’s pants and began moving it in “small circular movements[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 248. When approached by law enforcement, Peterson removed his hand from G.B.’s pants and provided a false name. See Williams v. State, 240 N.E.3d 1285, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (holding defendant providing false name demonstrated a consciousness of guilt). The circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient for the jury to determine Peterson touched G.B.’s genitals. See Shields, 248 N.E.3d at 1271.

II. Public Nudity

[9] Peterson argues the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of Class B misdemeanor public nudity. To convict Peterson of Class B misdemeanor public nudity, the State had to prove that Peterson “knowingly or intentionally appear[ed] in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person ․” Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1.5(c) (2014). Nudity is defined, in relevant part, as “the showing of the human male ․ genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering ․ or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.” Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1(d) (2020).

[10] “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a) (1977). Our Supreme Court has explained:

“[K]nowledge and intent are both mental states and, absent an admission by the defendant, the trier of fact must resort to the reasonable inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence.” Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. So given this real-world constraint, a defendant's mens rea may be proven by “circumstantial evidence,”—that is, it may be reasonably “inferred from a defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points.” Id.

A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060, 1064-65 (Ind. 2024) (alteration omitted).

[11] Citing to Weideman v. State, 890 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), Peterson contends the State presented insufficient evidence that he intended to be seen by another person because G.B. was unconscious, Blain described Peterson as behaving “discreet[ly,]” and he “quickly pulled up his pants” when law enforcement arrived. Tr. Vol. II pp. 208, 216. In doing so, Peterson invites us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d at 1191. And Weideman is easily distinguished from the case at hand: there, we held there was insufficient evidence Weideman intended to be seen nude because it was dark outside and he was only discovered once someone shined a vehicle's headlights on him. Weideman, 890 N.E.2d at 33. In contrast, Peterson exposed himself in the middle of the day at a public bus stop where passengers, drivers, and potentially children from the nearby school could see him. This evidence is sufficient for the jury to conclude Peterson intended to be seen nude.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Peterson does not challenge his conviction for Class A misdemeanor public indecency.

2.   Indiana Code section 35-42-4-8 was amended effective July 1, 2025. The relevant subsection remains unchanged.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.