facial constitutional challenge in Indiana

2023Humphreys v. Clinic for Women, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind. 2003). “[U]nlike the higher burden faced by those making a facial constitutional challenge,” those challenging the statute as applied “need only show the statute is unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case.” State v. S.T., 82 N.E.3d 257, 259 (Ind. 2017) (quotations omitted).

2019"That being said, unlike the higher burden faced by those making a facial constitutional challenge, those challenging the statute as applied 'need only show the statute is unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case.' " Id. (citing State v. Zerbe , 50 N.E.3d 368 , 369 (Ind. 2016) ). [8] Solomon asserts that the possession of a single blunt of marijuana by an adult who is not driving or otherwise impacting others falls well within the protections afforded by Section 1 and that marijuana brings happiness to some people, whether helping to alleviate a medical condition or for recreationa

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir. 1994) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 (1981)). [12] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statute unconstitutional on the

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “ ‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir.1994)) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). [7] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statut

2015Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville, 907 N.E.2d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

2015Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville, 907 N.E.2d 559, 564 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied.

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir. 1994) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 (1981)). [12] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statute unconstitutional on the

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “ ‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir.1994)) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). [7] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statut

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir. 1994) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 (1981)). [12] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statute unconstitutional on the

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “ ‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir.1994)) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). [7] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statut

2014This is because there exists at least one “circumstance[ ] under which the statute can be constitutionally applied.” Baldwin, 715 N.E.2d at 337 ; see also Citizens Nat’l Bank of Evansville v. Foster, 668 N.E.2d 1236, 1242 (Ind.1996) (noting that a facial challenge “demands a sweeping pronouncement of the statute[’s] constitutionality regardless of the factual setting”).

2014This is because there exists at least one “circumstance[] under which the statute can be constitutionally applied.” Baldwin, 715 N.E.2d at 337 ; see also Citizens Nat’l Bank of Evansville v. Foster, 668 N.E.2d 1236, 1242 (Ind. 1996) (noting that a facial challenge “demands a sweeping pronouncement of the statute[’s] constitutionality regardless of the factual setting”).

2019"That being said, unlike the higher burden faced by those making a facial constitutional challenge, those challenging the statute as applied 'need only show the statute is unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case.' " Id. (citing State v. Zerbe , 50 N.E.3d 368 , 369 (Ind. 2016) ). [8] Solomon asserts that the possession of a single blunt of marijuana by an adult who is not driving or otherwise impacting others falls well within the protections afforded by Section 1 and that marijuana brings happiness to some people, whether helping to alleviate a medical condition or for recreationa

2017That, being, said, unlike.the higher burden faced by those making a facial constitutional challenge, those challenging the statute as applied “need only show the statute is unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case.” State v. Zerbe, 50 N.E.3d 368, 369 (Ind. 2016) (internal quotations omitted).

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “ ‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir.1994)) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). [7] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statut

2015Seales v. State, 4 N.E.3d 821, 823 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citations and italics omitted), trans. denied. “ ‘The critical question in evaluating an ex post facto claim “is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.”’” Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96, 102 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2nd Cir.1994)) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 31 , 101 S.Ct. 960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). [7] Unlike a facial constitutional challenge, an as-applied challenge asks only that the reviewing court declare the challenged statut

2023Humphreys v. Clinic for Women, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 247, 257 (Ind. 2003). “[U]nlike the higher burden faced by those making a facial constitutional challenge,” those challenging the statute as applied “need only show the statute is unconstitutional on the facts of the particular case.” State v. S.T., 82 N.E.3d 257, 259 (Ind. 2017) (quotations omitted).

2017The Dissemination Statute Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague. “ ‘Due process principles- advise that a penal statute is void for vagueness if it does not clearly define its prohibitions,’ ” and one such source of vagueness is if the statute lacks “‘notice enabling ordinary people to understand the conduct that it prohibits.’” Tiplick, 43 N.E.3d at 1262 (quoting Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464, 467 (Ind. 2007)).