Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 1 of 9

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

Ronald J. Moore

The Moore Law Firm, LLC

Richmond, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeffrey B. Flora,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 28, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-506

Appeal from the Wayne Superior 

Court

The Honorable Darrin M. 

Dolehanty, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

89D03-1907-F5-81

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Jeffrey Flora (“Flora”) was convicted in Wayne Superior Court of Level 5 

felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Flora 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 2 of 9

appeals his conviction and argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that 

he was intoxicated.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On February 9, 2019, Flora and his girlfriend, Shelby Masters (“Shelby”) were 

planning to travel to Muncie, Indiana with Shelby’s mother, Sandra Morris 

(“Morris”) and Morris’s friend. Initially, Morris intended to pick up Flora and 

Shelby at Shelby’s home at 1:30 p.m., then the group would travel to Muncie. 

Later, the plan changed. Flora and Shelby decided they would meet Morris and 

her friend at Morris’s home, which was approximately ten minutes from 

Shelby’s home. Morris still expected them to arrive around 1:30 p.m.

[4] Around 2:00 p.m., neighbors saw Flora and Shelby leaving Shelby’s home on 

Flora’s Harley Davidson motorcycle. One neighbor was surprised that the 

couple was traveling on a motorcycle because even though it was a sunny day, 

it was cold. The witnesses reported that Flora was driving the motorcycle and 

Shelby was riding behind him.

[5] Morris became concerned when Shelby and Flora did not arrive at her home as 

planned. She called their cellphones, but neither answered the call. Morris 

thought maybe they had trouble with the motorcycle. She and her friend began 

driving the route to Shelby’s house to look for them. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 3 of 9

[6] Approximately two miles from Shelby’s home, Morris and her friend noticed 

the sun reflecting off the handlebars of a motorcycle. The motorcycle was lying 

off the road on an embankment near a bridge, which crossed a creek. From 

their position on the road, they could not see Flora or Shelby. Morris and her 

friend exited their vehicle and called 911 to report the crash. The 911 call was 

reported at 2:47 p.m.

[7] Morris walked toward the motorcycle and saw that it was “clear up on the 

embankment, as far as it could go.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 117. Then she noticed that 

Flora and Shelby were lying in the creek approximately 15 to 20 feet away. 

Morris yelled their names, but they were unconscious and did not respond.

[8] Flora was lying on his back. He was breathing and moaning. Shelby was lying 

face down and her torso was partially lying on top of Flora. Morris could not 

feel Shelby’s pulse. Morris, her friend, and an individual who stopped to help, 

carefully rolled Shelby off of Flora and onto her back. They performed CPR on 

Shelby before the paramedics and law enforcement arrived approximately ten 

minutes after they placed the 911 call. 

[9] Shelby suffered a cervical fracture to her neck upon impact with the ground and 

died immediately as a result of blunt force trauma. She was pronounced dead at 

the scene of the accident. Flora was transported to a hospital via helicopter.

[10] Wayne County Sheriff’s Department investigator Seth Biava (“Officer Biava”) 

was informed that a baggie containing over five grams of marijuana was found 

near the scene of the accident. He obtained a search warrant for a blood draw, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 4 of 9

and Flora’s blood was drawn at approximately 5:30 p.m. Flora’s blood ethanol 

level was .105. He also testified positive for the presence of delta-9 carboxy 

THC and delta 9 THC, and Midazolam, a benzodiazepine. Tr. Vol. II, p. 204; 

Ex. Vol., State’s Ex. 32. 

[11] On July 10, 2019, Flora was charged with Level 5 felony causing death when 

operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, Level 5 felony causing death when 

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

blood, and Level 5 felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with 

an ACE of .08 or more. Flora’s jury trial commenced on January 22, 2020.

Flora presented two defenses: that Shelby was driving the motorcycle and that 

he was not intoxicated when the accident occurred.

[12] Toxicologist Dr. Shelia Arnold testified that a person will start to show 

impaired judgment and slowed information processing with a blood alcohol 

level of .04. Tr. Vol. II p. 208. She stated that Flora was impaired when his 

blood was drawn and the THC in Flora’s system was affecting his brain. Id. at 

210-15. She explained that the combination of alcohol and Midazolam can 

increase the level of a person’s impairment. Id. at 210. Dr. Arnold also stated 

that she could not determine Flora’s precise blood alcohol level at the time of 

the accident, and his BAC was possibly below .08 depending on various 

circumstances. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 224-25.

[13] After the State presented its evidence, Flora moved for a directed verdict on all 

three counts. The trial court denied the motion with regard to Counts I and II, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 5 of 9

but granted the motion as to Count III, Level 5 felony causing death when 

operating a motor vehicle with an ACE of .08 or more. The jury returned a 

guilty verdict on the remaining two counts.

[14] The trial court determined that the two counts should be merged and entered a 

judgment of conviction on Count I, Level 5 felony causing death when 

operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Flora was ordered to serve five 

years and ten months in the Department of Correction. Flora now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[15] Flora argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was intoxicated 

and that his driving conduct resulted in Shelby’s death. Upon review of a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we 

respect the fact-finder’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence. Miller 

v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1067, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing McHenry v. State, 

820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)), trans. denied. We therefore neither reweigh 

the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Instead, we consider 

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. 

Id. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Drane v. State, 

867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (quotation omitted).

[16] On the date of the accident at issue in this appeal, Indiana Code section 9-30-5-

5(a)(3) provided that “[a] person who causes the death or catastrophic injury of 

another person when operating a vehicle . . . while intoxicated . . . commits” a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 6 of 9

Level 5 felony.1Indiana Code section 9-13-2-86 defines intoxicated in pertinent 

part as:

under the influence of: 

(1) alcohol 

(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1); 

(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance; 

(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3; [or]

(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) 

through (4) . . .

so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and 

the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.

[17] Flora claims that the toxicologist’s testimony was the only evidence of 

intoxication, which was insufficient to establish that he was impaired at the 

time of the accident. He argues that “it is purely speculation as to what Flora’s 

blood alcohol content was at the time of the accident.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. 

He also claims that it is unreasonable to conclude that his driving conduct 

caused the motorcycle crash because the “record is devoid of Flora’s driving 

conduct entirely.” Id. at 18.

1 The statute was amended on July 1, 2019 and the offense is now categorized as a Level 4 felony. I.C. § 9-

30-5-5(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 7 of 9

[18] The crash occurred on a sunny day with clear road conditions in the middle of 

the afternoon. From the evidence presented, it was reasonable for the jury to 

infer that no other vehicles were involved in the accident. Flora operated the 

motorcycle causing it to leave the roadway and travel twenty-five to thirty feet 

uphill on an embankment. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 73. 

[19] Based on his physical condition following the accident, his blood test results 

and the toxicologist’s testimony, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that 

Flora consumed alcohol prior to the accident. Flora’s blood draw was 

performed between three and four hours after the accident occurred.2 Flora’s 

blood ethanol alcohol level was .105. 

[20] Dr. Arnold testified that “ethanol has a wide range of effects” on the human 

body. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 208.

As you consume an alcoholic beverage, it is absorbed into your 

body, and distributed throughout the water in your body. So the 

more water content that you have, the more it’s able to distribute 

through your body. So men have more water than women do, so 

it’s able to distribute better in men. As it’s distributed throughout 

your body, one of the areas that it goes to is the brain, and the 

brain is where that interaction occurs. So at the low 

concentrations, you will have impaired judgment, slowed 

information processing. This will occur around a point zero, four 

(.04) to a point zero, five (.05) grams per 100 milliliters. The next 

stage that will occur, is impaired vision and auditory. So you’ll 

have blurred vision, slowed interpretation of what you actually 

2 The accident likely occurred around 2:00 p.m. The 911 call was placed at 2:47 p.m. Flora’s blood was 

drawn after the search warrant was obtained at 5:29 p.m. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 98.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 8 of 9

see, to a reaction that you can respond to. . . . The next stage 

would be—you would start to have deficiencies in your fine 

motor skills, and your gross motor skills. At this state is where 

most people consider somebody to be drunk or intoxicated, but 

the impairment occurred at lower concentrations. So this would 

be someone stumbling around, unable to have a coordinated gait, 

stand up. And then the next stage would be decreased awareness 

of your surroundings. This is a person that is sitting there, staring 

off into space, not really aware of their surroundings, maybe in a 

stupor, or fall asleep.

Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 208-09. Dr. Arnold also testified that delta-9 THC, a schedule 

one controlled substance, causes impairment.3 Tr. Vol. 2, p. 215.

[21] Dr. Arnold could not testify as to Flora’s precise blood alcohol level at the time 

of the crash. And she stated that that it was possible that his blood alcohol level 

at the time of the crash was below .08 depending on various circumstances. Tr. 

Vol. 2, pp. 224-25. But “proof of intoxication may be established by showing 

impairment, and . . . does not require proof of a [BAC] level.” Ballinger v. State, 

717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Moreover, circumstantial evidence is 

sufficient to prove that the defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated.

Jellison v. State, 656 N.E.2d 532, 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

3

In his brief, Flora argues that it is possible that Midazolam, an anti-anxiety medication, could have been 

given to him by medical personnel after the accident but before the blood draw. Appellant’s Br. at 15. It was 

reasonable for the jury to infer that Flora consumed alcohol and marijuana prior to the crash. But, Flora’s 

argument with regard to the Midazolam is not without merit. Therefore, we will not consider the presence of 

Midazolam in his blood in our resolution of the issue on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-506 | August 28, 2020 Page 9 of 9

[22] The jury reasonably inferred that Flora consumed alcohol before the accident in 

an amount that resulted in a blood alcohol level of .105 three to four hours after 

the accident occurred. Flora crashed his motorcycle while operating it on a 

roadway in the middle of the afternoon on a sunny day. There was no evidence 

that any other vehicles were involved in the accident. This evidence is sufficient 

to prove that Flora was intoxicated when the accident occurred and his 

impaired operation of the motorcycle caused the accident.

4

[23] For all of these reasons, we affirm Flora’s Level 5 felony causing death when 

operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated conviction.

[24] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur. 

4

For this same reason, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Flora’s request for a directed verdict 

on this charge. See Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (stating that if the evidence is 

sufficient to support a conviction on appeal, then the trial court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict 

cannot be in error).