Cited by

DISCUSSION A. Willits Instruction ¶8 P.2d 274 (1964).

¶23 After the close of evidence, with respect to the 7 STATE v. MEZA-CONTRERAS Decision of the Court rivet and the luggage.

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.

¶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

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

¶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).

sections 12-120.21.A.1 and 13-4031 and -4033.A.1 (West 2015).3 2

Shortly thereafter, Officer Bloom observed a black Monte Carlo with red racing 1

(adverse-inference jury instruction appropriate when the State loses or destroys evidence that could have been useful to a defense).

the residents.” P.2d 274 (1964).

called 911 and gave the operator a description of the car, including the 1 P.2d 274 (1964).

Request for Willits Instruction ¶32 Williamson contends the trial court erred by refusing his request for a

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.

did not discuss 1 P.2d 274 (1964).

Bermudez argued that because he put ownership of the cell phone at issue by 1 P.2d 274 (1964).

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

But defense counsel can waive this right on the defendant’s behalf and, absent 5 P.2d 274 (1964).

Jury Instruction ¶10 Glissendorf next contends the trial court erred in refusing his request for a P.2d 274 (1964).

This was significant because Rebecca‟s mother had told investigators “she could recognize [the voice] if she heard it again.” 191, 279 (1964) (allowing jury to make inferences against state when state responsible for loss of potentially exculpatory evidence).