Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 68 P.3d 127.

34 citing documents.

State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 63 (1999) (affirming the denial of a Willits instruction when it was "highly questionable" that the evidence was exculpatory); ¶ 38 (App. 2002) (affirming the denial of a Willits instruction because defendant's claim that the items may have produced exculpatory evidence was "sheer speculation").
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mallotte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 33 (App. 2002) ("[A] defendant's constitutional rights are not violated where, as here, evidence has been properly excluded.").
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
see also State v. Murray , , 33, , 566 (1995) ; State v. Davis , , ¶ 35
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
These rights are not violated, however, where “evidence has been properly excluded.” ¶ 33 (App. 2002); see also Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 328, ¶ 11
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Other Act Evidence ¶14 An appellate court “will not reverse the [trial] court’s rulings on issues of the relevance and admissibility of evidence absent a clear abuse of its considerable discretion.” ¶ 23 (App. 2002).
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citation omitted); ¶ 37, as amended (April 23, 2003) (“[I]n general, the state does not have a duty to seek out or preserve potentially exculpatory evidence for the defendant when they have developed sufficient evidence against him.”).
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37 (App. 2002) (to merit a Willits instruction, “[e]vidence must possess exculpatory value that is apparent before it is destroyed.”).
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
We will not disturb the court’s ruling “ ‘absent a clear abuse of its considerable discretion.’ ”
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶30 In a different line of argument, the state points to case law from Division One of this court which states that for a Willits instruction to be warranted, “evidence must possess exculpatory value that is apparent before it is destroyed.” accord State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 551
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Before 1 This court generally sets forth and views on appeal the evidence presented below in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“We review the admission or exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion.”
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[Ajbsent fundamental error, failure to raise issue at trial waives it on appeal.”).
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004