Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Walters, 748 P.2d 777.

38 citing documents.

State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Madrigal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(concluding “there was no suppression or destruction of evidence” where police failed to preserve the identity of inmates who witnessed a jailhouse assault).
State v. Nimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Nimer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A party is entitled to a particular jury instruction if it “is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.”
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶11 Due process requires the State to preserve evidence of “constitutional materiality.” (noting State has duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence “that is obvious, material and reasonably within its grasp”).
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gomez-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, the instruction should not be given “unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.” -65, ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (); –88 (App. 1995) (holding instruction required if there is “evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense”).
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶ 10, -88, -94 (App. 1995) (instruction required if there is “evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense”).
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Swope Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-53, -82 (App. 1987) (holding no error in refusing to give instruction regarding weight of law enforcement testimony where all witnesses were law enforcement officers).
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. 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. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
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
An instruction should not be given, however, “unless it is 5 reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.”
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
A self-defense instruction must be given if the defendant demonstrates that “(1) he reasonably believed he was in immediate physical danger; (2) he acted solely because of his belief; and (3) he used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstances.”
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“Generally, the State does not have an affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence.”)
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Buggs 806 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Dumaine 783 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1989
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988