context: In Pradubsri's case, the circuit court used truth-seeking language almost identical to that challenged in Needs. However, the circuit court referenced the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard at least twenty times during its instruc tions. Further, the instructions did not contain Manning's disfavored language.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 462 S.E.2d 884, 889
citation_a.parenthetical: noting a charge was not defective partly because it lacked "language found objectionable in the Manning case"
citation_a.sentence: See Needs, 333 S.C. at 155, 508 S.E.2d at 867 (holding a charge was harmless partly because “it did not contain ... troubling language identified in Manning”); see also State v. Kirkpatrick, 320 S.C. 38, 46, 462 S.E.2d 884, 889 (Ct. App. 1995) (noting a charge was not defective partly because it lacked “language found objectionable in the Manning case”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 333 S.C. 155, 155
citation_b.parenthetical: holding a charge was harmless partly because "it did not contain ... troubling language identified in Manning"
citation_b.sentence: See Needs, 333 S.C. at 155, 508 S.E.2d at 867 (holding a charge was harmless partly because “it did not contain ... troubling language identified in Manning”); see also State v. Kirkpatrick, 320 S.C. 38, 46, 462 S.E.2d 884, 889 (Ct. App. 1995) (noting a charge was not defective partly because it lacked “language found objectionable in the Manning case”).