ASHFAQUE v. STATE, 43 N.E.3d 242 (2015)
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Number: ininco20151007202
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2015
Summary: On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1404-CR-286. Aadil Ashfaque appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges of dealing in and possession of a synthetic drug, namely XLR11 [(1-(5-fluoropentyl)indol-3-yl)-(2, 2, 3, 3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone]. For the reasons set forth in our companion decision of Tiplick v. State, also issued today, we find no constitutional or statutory infirmity to these charges, but nevertheless dismiss them due
Summary: On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1404-CR-286. Aadil Ashfaque appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges of dealing in and possession of a synthetic drug, namely XLR11 [(1-(5-fluoropentyl)indol-3-yl)-(2, 2, 3, 3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone]. For the reasons set forth in our companion decision of Tiplick v. State, also issued today, we find no constitutional or statutory infirmity to these charges, but nevertheless dismiss them due ..
More
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1404-CR-286.
Aadil Ashfaque appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges of dealing in and possession of a synthetic drug, namely XLR11 [(1-(5-fluoropentyl)indol-3-yl)-(2, 2, 3, 3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone]. For the reasons set forth in our companion decision of Tiplick v. State, also issued today, we find no constitutional or statutory infirmity to these charges, but nevertheless dismiss them due to the inadequacy of the charging information, and remand to the trial court for all other proceedings consistent with that opinion.
RUSH, C.J., and DICKSON, RUCKER, and DAVID, JJ., concur.
Source: Leagle
