Here are some teasers to try to persuade you to read this case:
(1) It's about a 21 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old boy, a relationship that started a year previously. So it's, in a word, titillating.
(2) The woman seems sincerely remorseful. At least at this point.
(3) Perhaps not surprisingly, the woman has "issues". Take, for example, the following: "Defendant admitted having an extensive history of substance abuse that began at age 12 with daily use of alcohol and marijuana. At age 14, she was using methamphetamines and LSD daily, and her use continued until recently. At age 15, she started using PCP and ecstasy. She stopped using ecstasy after an overdose. At age 19, she started using cocaine, and at age 20, she experimented with mushrooms. She reported that marijuana is her drug of choice, and she considers herself to be an alcoholic. Defendant further explained that as a juvenile, 'she used to injure herself by cutting on her arms, the last occurrence when she was 17-years-old.'" Yikes.
(4) Justice Rushing's opinion largely concerns a probation condition in which the defendant was ordered to take any prescriptions ordered by her doctor. And Justice Rushing does a great job explaining why this condition is overbroad. It's a nuanced and balanced opinion that really takes the time to explain things and to make sure to do the right thing.
So I recommend the opinion. A fine way to get over the shortened mid-week hump.
P.S. - Just so you know I actually read this stuff. Page 11, first paragraph: "On its face, the language of the requirement is clear an unambiguous." Let's add a "d" after the "an".