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. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    This type of instruction is known as a Willits instruction, , and it permits a jury to draw an inference against the prosecution if the state allows evidence within its control to be destroyed.
  • State v. Boston 823 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Boston 823 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    though he does not specify what evidence was destroyed or lost.
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Nunez 806 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    All appellants contend that the trial court erred by refusing to sever the trials, , and A.R.S.
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
    {Willits instruction upon proof that (1) the state failed to preserve material evidence that was accessible and might have tended to exonerate the defendant, and (2) prejudice resulted).
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    ndant asserts the following claims of error: (1) The trial court improperly admitted evidence of a prior bad act; (2) The prosecutor commented on the defendant’s post-arrest silence; (3) Defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to the prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s post-arrest silence; and (4) , concerning the failure of the police to lift fingerprints from the physical evidence.
  • State v. Nunez 788 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Nunez 788 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    § 13-202(C), in denying his motion for a directed verdict
  • State v. Gerhardt 778 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Gerhardt 778 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    After noting that defendant had failed to show any substantial prejudice as the result of the loss of evidence, the court stated that “where evidence has been lost or destroyed by the prosecution, lacking a , ” Id.
  • State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
    to the effect that if the jury found that the state destroyed any evidence, the contents or quality of which were in issue, the jury might infer that the evidence would have favored Smith’s case.
  • State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
    Failure to Request A , regarding the destruction of the tapes of the disciplinary hearing and the delayed testing of the knife blade.
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Since the state’s evidence on this point was not of the best quality, the defendant insists, , that an instruction should have been given to the effect that if the jury found that the state had failed to gather evidence, the quality of which is in issue, the jury may infer that the true nature of that evidence would be against the state’s interest.
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Escalante 734 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Escalante 734 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    where the police had destroyed the remaining components of a homemade bomb which the defendant claimed had detonated accidently, our supreme court approved the giving of an instruction to the effect that the jury could infer from the state’s destruction of the evidence that the “true fact” was a
  • State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Tyler 718 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Defendant now claims that he was entitled to an instruction that, where the state has destroyed any evidence whose contents or quality are an issue
  • Mongan v. Pima County Superior Court 715 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Leslie 708 P.2d 719 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985