DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

321 citing documents.

  • State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
    ¶35 Speer later requested the following jury instruction, P.3d 274 (1964): If you find that the state lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve evidence whose contents or quality are important to the issues in this case, then you should weigh the explanation, if any, given for the loss or unavailability of the evidence.
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
    18 ¶42 Bocharski maintains that the court committed fundamental error by failing to give a P.2d 274 (1964).
  • Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    in which our supreme court reversed a conviction because the trial court refused to give an instruction permitting the jury to infer, if it found the state destroyed critical evidence, that the true fact was against the state’s interest.
  • 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. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    And we are not denying that in an appropriate case, , *461 (1964), may be warranted.
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Fulminante 975 P.2d 75 Ariz. 1999
    ¶ 62 When police negligently fail to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, , permits the jury to infer that the evidence would have been exculpatory.
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Refusal to Give a Willits Instruction ¶ 62 Wooten claims that he was entitled to a , because the state failed to preserve the original recordings of his telephone calls from the jail.
  • State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • 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
    permitting the jury to infer from the failure of police to preserve evidence that the evidence was against the state’s interest.
  • 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
    V. Denial of Willits Instruction Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction, , regarding the state’s failure to preserve the cash, pager, club, and water pistol for his use at trial.
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • 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
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Willits Instruction At Appellants’ request, the trial court gave a , regarding Stedino’s destruction of Matera’s notes.
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
  • 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
    Defendant contended that the officers’ admission that they failed to carry out this investigation would have entitled him to an instruction, , informing the jury that they could infer facts against the state’s interest.
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    (if the state destroys evidence, the contents or quality of which are at issue, jury may infer that the true facts are against the state’s interest).
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
  • 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
    because the police destroyed evidence that was, or might have been, favorable to him.
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993