1 p.m. 29A05-1208-CR-424. Shortridge High School, Indianapolis. Appellant Love Jeet Kaur appeals from the trial court’s
denial of her motion to dismiss the criminal charges against her: Class D felony dealing in a synthetic cannabinoid,
Class D felony possession of a synthetic cannabinoid, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. Kaur argues
on appeal that (1) the new Indiana Synthetic Drug Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too vague to serve notice
as to what behavior is prohibited and (2) it represents an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the General Assembly
because it allows the Indiana Board of Pharmacy to alter the definition of “synthetic drug.” The State argues
that (1) Kaur cannot mount a challenge to the Synthetic Drug Law because the drug she is alleged to have possessed and dealt
is specifically mentioned in the relevant statutes, (2) the statutes in question are not unconstitutionally vague, and (3)
allowing the Indiana Board of Pharmacy to alter the definition of “synthetic drug” is not an unconstitutional
delegation of authority.
Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.