Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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

Andrew B. Arnett

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David G. Pike,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 30, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-205

Appeal from the Shelby Superior 

Court

The Honorable R. Kent Apsley, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

73D01-1607-F6-267

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Davis G. Pike (“Pike”) appeals his conviction following a bench trial of Level 6 

felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the 

body causing serious bodily injury.1 He argues that there is insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, 

we affirm Pike’s conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Pike’s conviction 

for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II 

controlled substance in the body causing serious bodily injury. 2

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in May 2015, Pike was 

driving a vehicle with his nine-months-pregnant girlfriend, Samara Bedell 

(“Bedell”), as a passenger in the back seat. Pike turned left into oncoming 

traffic while his ability to see the oncoming traffic was obscured by a truck, and 

his vehicle was struck by an oncoming van. A seriously injured Bedell was 

 

1

IND. CODE § 9-30-5-4.

2

Pike also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of Level 6 felony operating a 

vehicle while intoxicated. However, the sentencing order provides that the trial court “enter[ed] no judgment 

as to Count I, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Causing Serious Bodily Injury, a Level 6 Felony, a 

factually included offense under Count II.” (App. Vol. 2 at 35). Because Pike was not convicted of 

operating a vehicle while intoxicated, there is no such conviction to appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 5

lifelined to a severe trauma facility where she was diagnosed with a ruptured 

uterus, and her baby died. At the time of the crash, Pike had THC active 

metabolites in his blood. 

[4] The trial court convicted Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a 

schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury. 

Pike now appeals. 

Decision

[5] Pike argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level 

6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance causing

serious bodily injury. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence 

claims is well settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 

2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We 

will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the 

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is 

sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the 

verdict. Id. at 147. 

[6] In order to convict Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I 

or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury, the State 

had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pike caused serious 

bodily injury to Bedell while operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II 

controlled substance or metabolite in his body. See I.C. § 9-30-5-4. Pike’s sole 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 5

argument is that “his driving was not the substantial cause of [Bedell’s] injury.” 

(Pike’s Br. 11).

[7] Pike has waived appellate review of this argument because his brief, conclusory 

argument is supported neither by citation to authority nor cogent argument. See 

Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party 

waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent 

argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the 

record.”), trans. denied.

[8] Waiver notwithstanding, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “the 

State must prove the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the victim’s 

injury or death.” Abney v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. 2002). In other 

words, the State must prove that the victim’s injury was a foreseeable result of 

the defendant’s conduct. Hopson v. State, 95 N.E.3d 531, 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2018).

[9] Here, it is foreseeable that a passenger will suffer serious bodily injury where 

the driver (1) makes a left turn in front of oncoming traffic when his view is 

obstructed, and (2) has active THC metabolites in his blood. This evidence is 

sufficient to support Pike’s conviction for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle 

with a schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily 

injury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 5

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, Sr.J., concur.