Ashfaque v. State

[23] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the statutory scheme in effect at the time of Ashfaque’s alleged crimes for dealing in and possession of synthetic drugs is void for vagueness because “[a]n ordinary person cannot be required to follow and understand Indiana’s synthetic drug statutory maze.” Op. at 187 (quotation omitted). I do so for the same reasons identified today in Judge Bailey’s dissent in Tiplick v. State, No. 49A04-1312-CR-617, 25 N.E.3d 190, 2015 WL 383884 (Ind.Ct.App. Jan. 27, 2015).

*189[24]When Ashfaque allegedly committed the crimes on May 5, 2013, XLR-11…