Richard Lee Beavers, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Richard Lee Beavers appeals his conviction for Class C misdemeanor public nudity following a bench trial. Beavers presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On September 1, 2025, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jacob Liebhauser was dispatched to a gas station/laundromat after a report that there was “trouble with a person” there. Tr. p. 13. When he arrived at the gas station, an employee directed Officer Liebhauser to the attached laundromat, where a man was lying on a set of chairs near the front door. That man, later identified as Beavers, was found with his jeans pulled down “near his mid-thigh area,” and his penis and scrotum were exposed, having been “pulled out through the fly” of his boxer shorts. Id. at 16, 19. Beavers's eyes were closed. Officer Liebhauser woke him up and placed him in handcuffs. Beavers told Officer Liebhauser that “he had had a beer, gone outside to urinate, had another beer, gone outside to urinate, and then came back in and lie[d] down.” Id. at 16. Officer Liebhauser captured the entire interaction with Beavers on his body camera.

[4] The State charged Beavers with Class C misdemeanor public nudity. At the bench trial, the State presented Officer Liebhauser's testimony; the body camera footage; and evidence that Beavers had thirteen prior convictions for public indecency. The trial court convicted Beavers as charged and sentenced him to forty-five days in jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Beavers argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Our standard of review is well settled.

When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses ․” We consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences that support the [judgment]. “We will affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”

Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011)).

[6] Indiana Code section 35-45-4-1.5 provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally appears in a public place in a state of nudity commits public nudity, a Class C misdemeanor. Beavers's sole contention on appeal is that the State did not prove that he knowingly or intentionally exposed his penis and scrotum.¹ In particular, Beavers asserts that, “after falling asleep he simply was unaware that he had failed to ‘zip up’ and, therefore, did not knowingly appear in a state of nudity.” Appellant's Br. at 8-9.

[7] In short, Beavers asks that we credit his self-serving testimony that he had simply forgotten to zip up his pants by accident. Thus, Beavers's argument on appeal is a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The State presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that Beavers knowingly or intentionally exposed his genitalia in public. Officer Liebhauser testified that he found Beavers lying on a set of chairs, in full view of everyone inside the laundromat, with his pants pulled down and his penis and scrotum exposed through the fly of his boxer shorts. Officer Liebhauser also testified that Beavers's criminal history includes thirteen prior convictions for public indecency, which supports the intent element.

[8] We affirm Beavers's conviction for public nudity.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Beavers does not challenge the admission of evidence at trial, including the evidence of his prior convictions, which was admitted over Beavers's objection under Evidence Rule 404(b).

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.