Love Jeet Kaur v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 209
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kaur and Singh allegedly sold AM-2201 at a Noblesville Valero, leading to undercover purchases between March 21–26, 2012.
- On May 11, 2012, Kaur was charged with possession, dealing, and maintaining a common nuisance related to synthetic drugs.
- Kaur moved to dismiss the charges, asserting the Synthetic Drug Law is vague and improperly delegated to the Board of Pharmacy.
- The trial court denied the motion; certification for interlocutory appeal followed.
- Statutory framework allows the Board to issue emergency rules designating synthetic drugs, with specific timing and scope constraints.
- AM-2201 was specifically designated by the General Assembly as illegal, not solely by Board rulemaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Kaur properly on notice of the charges? | Kaur argues the information only mentioned synthetic cannabinoid, not AM-2201. | Kaur contends lack of specificity prejudices defense. | Information and probable cause together sufficed; notice satisfied. |
| Is the Synthetic Drug Law unconstitutionally vague as applied to Kaur? | Law is tailored by statute and applies to designated substances. | Board-driven vagueness makes conduct unclear for ordinary people. | Vagueness challenge fails as applied; AM-2201-specific designation controls. |
| Does the Synthetic Drug Law impermissibly delegate legislative power to the Board? | Delegation to the Board creates constitutional risk. | AM-2201 was designated by the General Assembly, not Board rulemaking. | Delegation issue not reached; statute capable of constitutional application in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. State, 495 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. 1986) (notice by information and related affidavits viewed together)
- Woods v. State, 980 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (information and probable-cause affidavit viewed in tandem)
- Healthscript, Inc. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. 2002) (due process vagueness standards for penal statutes)
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (defining vagueness and ordinary comprehension)
- Lombardo v. State, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 2000) (statutory vagueness and notice to general audience)
- Downey v. State, 476 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. 1985) (line between trivial and substantial conduct for criminal statutes)
- Rhinehardt v. State, 477 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. 1985) (definitional clarity for proscribed conduct)
- Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (applicability of vagueness review to hypothetical scenarios)
- Helton v. State, 624 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (constitutional challenge framework for Indiana appeals)