Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Torres, 781 P.2d 47.

31 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(holding, in prosecution for heroin possession, that trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior heroin use because defendant’s contention “that the heroin was not his” did not “bring[] into play any issue of motive, knowledge, intent, absence of mistake or accident”); see also United
State v. Fields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 “Police generally have no duty to seek out and obtain potentially exculpatory evidence,” or “gather evidence for the accused to use in proving his defense,”
State v. Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-73 (App. 1989) (court erred by admitting defendant's prior drug use because there was "simply nothing in the case" that brought "into play any issue of motive, knowledge, intent, absence of mistake, or accident").
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To be entitled to a Willits instruction, a defendant must prove that (1) the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate the accused, and (2) there was resulting prejudice.” (citation omitted).
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that denial of Willits instruction was appropriate for destruction of taxicab which had been extensively photographed and tested, with results provided to defense counsel); (holding that proof of the absence of fingerprints on heroin packet would not have materially aided defense, and accordingly the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willits instruction).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Police generally have no duty to seek out and obtain potentially exculpatory evidence.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 24, (appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether jury’s findings are supp
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Police generally have no duty to seek out and obtain potentially exculpatory evidence.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 24, (appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether jury’s findings are supported
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Police generally have no duty to seek out and obtain potentially exculpatory evidence.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 24, (appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether jury’s findings are supported
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-11 , -71 (1996) -73 , -50 (App. 1989) helpful.
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
( , (defining “common scheme or plan” in the *193 context of Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evict))
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Distinguished State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-433 , -409 (App.1987); -74 , -51 (App.1989).
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(Willits instruction properly denied despite argument that fingerprints possibly were destroyed).
State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
According to this narrower definition, the state must demonstrate that the other act is part of “a particular plan of which the charged crime is a part.” , (defining “common scheme or plan” in the context of Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evid.)
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(fingerprint evidence does not possess “exculpatory value”).
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
in support of his argument.
State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993