Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 So. 3d 620 - Williams v. State

111 So. 3d 620 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Sandstrom v. Montana · Rose v. Clark · Francis v. Franklin

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “we consider the distinctive differences between “infer” and “presume.” “Infer” is.defined as “to conclude from certain premises or evidence.” By this definition, a jury may not make an inference without evidence adduced at trial to support that inference. However, [the instruction at issue in Williams ] did not use “infer” but instead used “presume,” which is defined as “to assume to be true without proof to the contrary.” “Assume” is analogous to “presume” and “stresses] the arbitrary acceptance as true of something which has not yet been proved.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[h]er testimony was sufficient to warrant an instruction on accident or mistake, which was granted. .Once her defense was placed in issue and the instruction given, it was the duty of the jury to consider Williams’s testimony and defense among all the other evidence presented. It was S-4 which created this dilemma, for it is impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the jury engaged in this consideration or merely relied on S-4’s presumption as to intent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The burden of proof in a criminal case never shifts from the State to the defendant. The State is required to prove every material element of the indictment beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, the defendant is not required to prove that he acted in self-defense, and, if a reasonable doubt of his guilt- arises from the evidence, including evidence of self-defense, he must be acquitted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.