it to support the verdict.” Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). “‘A reasonable inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla.’ ” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1068 (Ind.2015) (quoting Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391, 393 (Ind.1986)) (alteration in Willis omitted). Section 1.2—The State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Patel was subjectively aware that the baby was born alive. [27] Regarding the specific elements of the neglect charge, Patel concedes that she was over eighteen years old and that her baby was less than fourteen years old and born alive and therefore a dependent for purposes of the neglect statute. See Herron v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Her sufficiency argument
holding a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution holding that an unborn child is not a dependent for purposes of the neglect statute holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child