380 So. 2d 248 - Torrence v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is the defendant's sole contention that his uncontradicted testimony establishes entrapment as a matter of law, and, that the burden was on the state to rebut such evidence and the state failed to sustain that burden. This Court had the same question before it in the recent case of Sylar v. State, 340 So.2d 10 (Miss. 1976). There it was shown that Sylar, after declining on several occasions, consented to a Mississippi Narcotics Bureau undercover agent's request to deliver a one-pound package of marijuana to a "friend," who was also an undercover agent. Sylar was also instructed to collect from the latter $120.00. Sylar consummated the sale and returned the state funds back to the first agent's residence. In reversing and discharging the defendant, the Court quoted with approval from State v. Talbot, 71 N.J. 160 , 364 A.2d 9 (1976), wherein the New Jersey Supreme Court stated this rule: This appeal poses the issue whether entrapment is established as a matter of law if an informant, while acting in concert with an undercover police officer, but unknown to the officer and contrary to instructions, supplies the defendant with heroin for the purpose of then arranging a sale of the heroin by defendant to the undercover officer, which sale is then consummated. We hold that it is. ( 364 A.2d at 10 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 417 So. 2d 543 - Epps v. State

2. “When an informer or other agent generally acting in concert with law enforcement authorities, furnishes a defendant with heroin for the purpose of arranging a sale of the heroin by the defendant to an undercover officer, which sale was then consummated, defendant was entrapped as a matter of law, even though predisposition to commit the crime may appear and notwithstanding that the furnishing of the heroin was unknown to and contrary to the instructions of the law enforcement authorities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 534 So. 2d 557 - Moore v. State