Workman v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that because the applicant will receive PCR on one claim, \we need not address\ the remaining issues
• concluding the fact that the jury returned a verdict two hours after receiving the Allen charge tended to prove the charge was coercive
• recognizing adoption of Tucker factors in non-capital case to determine whether an Allen charge is unconstitutionally coercive
• recognizing as impermissibly coercive trial judge's language beseeching jurors to continue deliberations \with the hope that you can arrive at a unanimous verdict within a reasonable time\
• finding Allen charge coercive where the trial judge did not charge the majority jurors to consider the positions of the minority jurors
• granting PCR where trial counsel failed to object to an Allen charge containing this language

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Taylor
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2019-06-12· cited 8×
• Buckson v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-05-23· cited 3×
• State v. Charles Brandon Rampey
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2022-10-05
• Oshaun J. Robinson v. State
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2026-01-14

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Anders v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 87,848×
• Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-07-26· cited 1,327×
• State v. Williams
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-02-08· cited 36×
• Green v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-08-12· cited 31×
• Tucker v. Catoe
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-07-23· cited 29×