With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the record indicates that the trial court considered thoroughly the objective facts and circumstances which the responding officers had before them in determining to issue the warning citation. These facts and circumstances — Complainant’s claim that she had been struck by Defendant with a walkman and was afraid Defendant would kill her, the physical evidence of the abrasions on Complainant’s head, and Complainant’s distraught and crying behavior on both days — were sufficient indicators that Complainant had been recently physically abused or harmed, thus providing reasonable grounds for an officer to believe that a warning citation should be issued. The statute, therefore, did not subject Defendant to arbitrary application or enforcement of its provisions. Cf. State v. Lee, supra (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). We also reject Defendant’s

A: holding a law is void for vagueness when it offers no standard of conduct that was possible to know emphasis added
B: holding that the manner a controlled substance is packaged may be considered in establishing intent to sell and deliver
C: holding that the statute making it unlawful for any person to deliver  drug paraphernalia knowing or under circumstances where one reasonably should know that it will be used to  introduce into the human body a controlled substance was not void for vagueness
D: holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance
C.