WINCHESTER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Mark N. Winchester appeals his conviction for public nudity as a class B misdemeanor. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the morning of December 27, 2024, Becky Keller was driving on Main Street near the Devon Theater in Attica, Indiana, and her thirteen-year-old grandson, W.D., was in the passenger seat. Keller observed a “guy standing in the middle of the roadway” wearing “like red or orange shorts” and no shirt. Transcript Volume II at 191. The man “cuss[ed] [Keller] out,” stood in front of her car, moved around to the side of her vehicle, lowered his shorts “all the way down to the ground,” and “show[ed] his” penis when he was “right up by [her] window.” Id. at 191-192. Keller and W.D. observed the man's penis. The man continued “cussing [her] out” and was “calling [her] names and he said the B word and ․ take your blankety blank child home and everything.” Id. at 192. Keller called 911, and the man entered an apartment across from the Devon Theater.

[3] Attica Police Officer Zane Dillon responded to the scene. Keller described the man “and the apartment that he went back into.” Id. at 212. Officer Dillon went to the apartment, and, “[w]hen [he] walked up to the doorway[,] the man in shorts with no shirt on had opened the door on that corner apartment.” Id. at 214. Officer Dillon observed that the shorts were “[o]range-ish, red,” which fit the description he was given of the suspect. Id. Officer Dillon entered the apartment and observed it was in disarray with empty alcohol bottles next to the couch.

[4] Officer Dillon stated that he was investigating “possibly him for pulling his pants down and yelling at people in the roadway outside.” Id. at 215. Winchester stated that he did not do that, was “very upbeat,” “would go from upbeat to calm to agitated again,” and “would pace around.” Id. Officer Dillon detected the odor of alcohol coming from Winchester. Attica Police Chief Garret Miller arrived and asked Winchester if he had consumed alcohol, and Winchester said “that he had not had enough.” Id. at 216. Chief Miller detected the odor of alcohol coming from Winchester's breath. Officer Dillon observed a water bong, which is a device used for smoking illegal narcotics.

[5] Officer Dillon informed Winchester that he would be arresting him and instructed him to place his hands behind his back. Winchester said that he was not going to be arrested in his own home, sat on the couch, and grabbed the couch with his arms behind him. Officer Dillon instructed him to stand up and place his hands behind his back, and Winchester did not comply. After asking him again and Winchester failing to comply, Officer Dillon and Chief Miller grabbed his arms and a physical struggle ensued for about a minute during which Winchester stated, “I'm resisting. I'm fighting.” Id. at 218. Officer Dillon was able to eventually place Winchester in handcuffs.

[6] Chief Miller walked Winchester out the door and felt a “drastic tug or pull up and out of [his] sidearm away from [his] body.” Transcript Volume III at 3-4. Chief Miller said, “Get your hand off of my gun.” Transcript Volume II at 220. Chief Miller took Winchester to the ground and asked him if he “was out of his mind.” Id. Winchester answered, “Yes.” Id.

[7] On December 30, 2024, the State charged Winchester with: Count I, disarming a law enforcement officer as a level 5 felony; Count II, resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor; Count III, public indecency as a class A misdemeanor; Count IV, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor; and Count V, possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. On April 16, 2025, the State charged Winchester with Count VI, public nudity as a class B misdemeanor.

[8] On May 14, 2025, the court held a jury trial. The State presented the testimony of Keller, W.D., Officer Dillon, and Chief Miller. During redirect examination of Keller, the prosecutor asked, “Other than their clothing could you identify [the man] again?” Id. at 198. Keller answered, “Not really right offhand.” Id. W.D. indicated that the interaction lasted “[a]bout five minutes probably” and that was the only time he had seen the man. Id. at 204. The prosecutor asked W.D., “Do you know if that person who you saw on the street that day is here in the courtroom?” Id. W.D. answered, “No.” Id. The prosecutor asked, “You're not sure?” Id. W.D. answered, “No.” Id.

[9] The State dismissed Count IV. The jury found Winchester not guilty of Counts I and III and guilty of Counts II, V, and VI. On May 15, 2025, the court sentenced Winchester to concurrent sentences of 278 days on Count II, 60 days on Count V, and 180 days on Count VI.

Discussion

[10] Winchester argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the person who confronted Keller and W.D. and “the only evidence presented on the issue of public nudity was that a person the witnesses could not identify but for the color of his shorts had exposed himself to them.” Appellant's Brief at 7. When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. Rather, we look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Elements of offenses and identity may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). Identification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal to sustain a conviction. Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Inconsistencies in identification testimony impact only the weight of that testimony, because it is the jury's task to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Gleaves v. State, 859 N.E.2d 766, 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Badelle v. State, 754 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied). As with other sufficiency matters, we will not weigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility when determining whether the identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Heeter, 661 N.E.2d at 616. Rather, we examine the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id.

[12] Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1.5(c) provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by another person commits a Class B misdemeanor.”¹

[13] While Keller and W.D. did not specifically identify Winchester during the trial, the record reveals that Keller and W.D. described the clothes that he was wearing, his behavior, and his location. Keller testified that the man she observed was wearing “like red or orange shorts” and no shirt. Transcript Volume II at 191. W.D. testified that the man was not wearing a shirt and was wearing “bright neon red shorts.” Id. at 202. Keller testified regarding how quickly she called 911. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked: “About how long from the time you first saw this person to the time you were able to get – drove past to the corner and had your grandson call law enforcement, about how long passed if you could guess?” Id. at 196-197. Keller answered, “I'd say about five, six minutes.” Id. at 197. Defense counsel asked, “And did you call law enforcement immediately?” Id. Keller answered, “Yes.” Id.

[14] Officer Dillon responded to the scene, and Keller described the man “and the apartment that he went back into.” Id. at 212. Officer Dillon went to the apartment described by Keller, and a man “in shorts with no shirt on had opened the door on that corner apartment.” Id. at 214. Officer Dillon observed that the shorts were “[o]range-ish, red,” which fit the description he was given of the suspect. Id. When asked if that man was present in the courtroom, Officer Dillon identified Winchester. He also described Winchester's behavior which included him being agitated. Chief Miller testified that Winchester was wearing “[o]range or red shorts” and no shirt. Id. at 245. In light of the record, we conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find Winchester guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of public nudity as a class B misdemeanor.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Winchester's conviction.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1(d) provides that “nudity” means “the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.”

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.