Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding drug statute constitutional because, despite having multiple undefined terms, the statute contained a scienter requirement and numerous factors to help determine the accused’s intent
• holding information adequately informed defendant of synthetic drug allegedly possessed when drug name was provided in probable cause affidavit attached to information
• relying on an express scienter requirement in rejecting a vagueness challenge to a counterfeit-controlled-substance statute
• deferring for another day the question of whether the Indiana Constitution provides a different analysis on vagueness claims
• relying on an express scienter requirement in rejecting a vagueness challenge to a counterfeit-controlled-substance statute
• relying on an express scienter requirement in rejecting a vagueness challenge to a counterfeit-controlled-substance statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).