Amber Krieg v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
This text of Amber Krieg v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Amber Krieg v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 29 2018, 8:52 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General Evansville, Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amber Krieg, August 29, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1230 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D03-1511-F4-7265
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Amber Krieg appeals the revocation of her placement in the Vanderburgh
County Community Corrections work-release program. We reverse. Krieg was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1230 | August 29, 2018 Page 1 of 2 accused of violating Condition 14 of the work-release program, which provides,
“I will not use or consume any illegal drugs, or controlled substances without a
valid current prescription.” Ex. 1.1 The only evidence the State presented to
show that Krieg violated this condition was the testimony of two residential
officers who believed that Krieg was “intoxicated” and “under the influence of
an unknown substance” one day at the work-release facility. Tr. pp. 6, 10, 14,
15. The problem with this evidence is that even prescribed drugs can cause a
person to be intoxicated. See, e.g., Alfrey v. State, 960 N.E.2d 229, 234 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012), trans. denied. As such, the mere fact that Krieg appeared
intoxicated does not, standing alone, support the conclusion that she used or
consumed an illegal or unprescribed drug. Notably, Krieg testified at the
revocation hearing that she had been prescribed Seroquel (which can cause
drowsiness, according to the FDA), that she had taken a dose the night before
she was observed to be intoxicated, and that she felt “a little drowsy” and “[a]
little groggy” when she woke up the next day. Tr. pp. 17-18. The State failed
to prove that Krieg had taken anything other than that dose of Seroquel.
[2] Reversed.
Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
1 The petition to revoke that was filed alleged that Krieg had violated “section IV of the VCWR Handbook,” which apparently provides that “any use or possession of intoxicants, unauthorized or illegal drug is strictly prohibited.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 57. At the revocation hearing, however, no mention was made of that provision. The hearing focused on Condition 14 of the work-release program. Tr. p. 6. Similarly, the State discusses only Condition 14 of the work-release program in its brief on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1230 | August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Amber Krieg v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amber-krieg-v-state-of-indiana-mem-dec-indctapp-2018.