Cited by

However, providing an “abstract instruction, which ‘broadens the issues beyond the scope of the evidence and thus impliedly submits to the jury issues and questions not properly before it,’ constitutes error.” ().

The trial court therefore granted Egan’s request for a Willits jury instruction, permitting the jury to draw an unfavorable inference toward the state if it found that the state had “lost, destroyed or failed to preserve evidence whose content or quality are important to the issues in this case.”

on alleging that (1) his indictment was defective, (2) his sentence was illegal, (3) other acts evidence was wrongly admitted, (4) Brady evidence existed and was not disclosed, see generally Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding that the State must disclose material evidence favorable to the accused), (5) the court failed to give a Willits instruction, (holding that a jury may be instructed to draw an adverse inference if the state fails to preserve potentially exonerating evidence)

M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Joel Diaz appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of sexual assault, arguing the superior court erred by (1) restricting his expert witness's testimony and (2)

He raised claims that the indictment was defective, he received an illegal sentence, the superior court improperly admitted other act evidence, the State withheld exculpatory evidence, and his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance.

¶10 Reed next argues his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to file a motion to reconsider the trial court’s denial of Reed’s

(allowing a jury instruction that the jury may draw “an inference unfavorable to the prosecution” when the State destroys evidence).

Rodriguez challenges the superior court’s denial of his motions to sever charges, strike four jurors for cause

¶35 Royalty contends the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requests to instruct the jury that (1) (2) jurors should evaluate the testimony of cooperating witnesses with greater caution than other witnesses; and (3) jurors could find that the State failed to prove his guilt if they found that a superseding intervening event caused the deaths in this case.

B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Clarence James Dean Jr. appeals his convictions for aggravated driving under the influence (“DUI”) based on the superior court’s

Adverse Inference Instruction ¶20 because the State did not preserve the light rail surveillance video or the recording of the 911 call.

After a short pursuit, the car stopped at an apartment complex and 1