Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Willits, 393 P.2d 274.

323 citing documents.

State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
After a hearing, the court denied the motion, finding the State had complied with disclosure obligations and that Matta had not shown the police failed to preserve any 3 STATE v. MATTA Decision of the Court exculpatory evidence, but that a might be appropriate.
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION A. Willits Instruction ¶8 P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶23 After the close of evidence, with respect to the 7 STATE v. MEZA-CONTRERAS Decision of the Court rivet and the luggage.
State v. Philpot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Philpot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
which permits the jury to infer that missing evidence would have 3 STATE v. PHILPOT Decision of the Court been exculpatory, regarding Philpot’s post-arrest interview recording.
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶22 Contreras argues the trial court erred in failing to, sua sponte, instruct the jury that it could infer from the State’s failure to obtain a blood or urine sample following Contreras’s arrest that the results would be unfavorable to the State
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
E. Denial of Willits Instruction ¶23 P.2d 274 (1964), based on the failure of the detective to preserve the recording of an interview of a key witness, who denied the detective’s claim that the witness had said that Webster’s conduct with girls was “a little inappropriate.” The detective testified he was unable to download anything from his digital
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶10 A defendant is not entitled to a Willits instruction in a case like this – where a law enforcement officer has merely failed “to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence.” see also Murray, 184 Ariz. at 33, 906 4 P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
sections 12-120.21.A.1 and 13-4031 and -4033.A.1 (West 2015).3 2
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shortly thereafter, Officer Bloom observed a black Monte Carlo with red racing 1
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(adverse-inference jury instruction appropriate when the State loses or destroys evidence that could have been useful to a defense).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
the residents.” P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
called 911 and gave the operator a description of the car, including the 1 P.2d 274 (1964).
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Request for Willits Instruction ¶32 Williamson contends the trial court erred by refusing his request for a
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith argued not only that this evidence would have supported his claim of self-defense, but he would have proceeded to trial and sought a P.2d 274 (1964), had he known the evidence was lost or destroyed.
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
did not discuss 1 P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bermudez argued that because he put ownership of the cell phone at issue by 1 P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If the State “negligently fail[s] to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, P.2d 274 (1964), permits the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.” 503
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
Followed State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
But defense counsel can waive this right on the defendant’s behalf and, absent 5 P.2d 274 (1964).
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
Jury Instruction ¶10 Glissendorf next contends the trial court erred in refusing his request for a P.2d 274 (1964).