Torrence v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the word “should” is not permissive in this context because “the instruction gives the jury only two choices” and thereby conveys that “an acquittal is the jury’s only choice if they entertain . . . a reasonable doubt”
• upholding the use of “should” in instructing a jury whether to acquit
• upholding the use of \should\ in instructing a jury whether to acquit
• “We cannot agree that the use of the word ‘should,’ rather than ‘must,’ in [an] instruction conveys the impression that it is discretionary with the jury whether to acquit if they have a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2013-04-09· cited 23×
• People v. Sanders
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2009-07-21· cited 3×
• State of Washington v. Darrell F. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2013-04-09
• Brown v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2012-10-31

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Cupp v. Naughten
  Supreme Court· 1973-12-04· cited 2,639×
• United States v. Park
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-09· cited 510×
• Carawan v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1987-09-03· cited 474×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1989-06-22· cited 218×
• Gonzalez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1989-05-16· cited 11×
• Jones v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1989-08-29· cited 5×
• Salazar v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-03-13· cited 3×
• Stanley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-04-17· cited 3×
• Hollinger v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-07-24· cited 3×
• Wright v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-03-06· cited 1×