Jermaine McKinley 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.

• rejecting the State's argument that subsection (a)(1)'s \knowingly or intentionally\ applies to subsection (a)(2) because of the \disjunctive conjunction\ between the two subsections
• rejecting the State’s argument that subsection (a)(1)’s “knowingly or intentionally” applies to subsection (a)(2) because of the “disjunctive conjunction” between the two subsections
• rejecting the State’s argument that subsection (a)(1)’s “knowingly or intentionally” applies to subsection (a)(2) because of the “disjunctive conjunction” between the two subsections
• “Although defining ‘intent to deliver’ may have been preferable, terms in common use that can be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence do not always need to be defined.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).