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. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    In any event, , was adequate and afforded Fierson the opportunity to argue, and he did, that the destruction could create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
    Alternatively, he contends that, , he was entitled to the following instruction: If you find that the Plaintiff, the State of Arizona, has destroyed any evidence whose contents or quality are in issue, *538 you may infer that the true fact is against their interest.
  • State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lamb 690 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1984
    The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied, and then, , asked the court to instruct the jury that: If you find that the State of Arizona has failed to produce evidence from any source that is peculiarly within its power to provide and the contents, nature or quality of that evidence is crucial to the defense, you may presume that because the evidence
  • Oshrin v. Coulter 688 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1984
  • Oshrin v. Coulter 688 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1984
    would cure any harm the petitioner may suffer because the second sample was de *112 stroyed.
  • State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hunter 688 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1984
    We reversed the judgment of conviction and sentence for murder and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court gave an incomplete motive instruction and failed to give a so-called Willits instructions, , (an instruction to the effect that if the jury finds that the state or any agent of the state allowed evidence to be destroyed, then the jury may infer that the evidence would be against the interests of the state).
  • State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Mitchell 683 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    particular witness or to make any particular test so long as there is fairly presented the material evidence bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is on trial and such evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant *557 beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added) In lieu of the court’s instruction, , which states: “If you find that the plaintiff, the State of Arizona, has destroyed, caused to be destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed any evidence whose contents or quality are an issue
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    The instruction would be to the effect that “If you find that the plaintiff, the State of Arizona, has destroyed, caused to be destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed any evidence whose contents or quality are in issue, you may infer that the true fact is against their interest.” 96 Ariz. at 187, .
  • State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hunter 664 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    The first of these was a “Willits” instruction, , : “If you find that the state or any of its agents destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed, any evidence, including fingerprints, which may have been relevant, then you may infer that the evidence would have tended to disprove the state’s case.” The evidence giving rise to the request was the destru
  • State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    He argues therefore that the defendant’s
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
    The Willits’ instruction reads: “If you find that the plaintiff, the State of Arizona, has destroyed, caused to be destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed any evidence whose contents or quality are at issue, you may infer that the true fact is against their [sic] interest.”
  • State v. Hyde 648 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hyde 648 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Williams 644 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1982
    “The word comment as used in the constitutional provision has been construed to mean the expression of an opinion.” , accord
  • State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
    this Court held that a similar instruction should have been given where potentially exculpatory evidence had been destroyed by the state.
  • State v. Soloman 607 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Soloman 607 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1980
    We note that the court gave the jury the following instruction, , : “If you find that the plaintiff, the State of Arizona, [its officers or agents, have] destroyed, caused to be destroyed, *23 or allowed to be destroyed any evidence, whose contents or quality are in issue, you may infer that the true fact is against the State’s interests.” The jury may have conc
  • State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
    The instruction requested by appellant was one similar to that approved in State v. Willits, *259 , and arises out of the evidence presented by Dr. Campbell.
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Hannah 583 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1978
  • State Ex Rel. Hyder v. Hughes 580 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1978
    We think that where evidence has been lost or destroyed by the prosecution, lacking a
  • State v. Hannah 583 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1978
    uld reverse a defendant’s criminal conviction if (1) bad faith or connivance on the part of the State can be shown or (2) a defendant was prejudiced by loss of evidence, and we held: “ * * * that where evidence has been lost or destroyed by the prosecution, lacking a clear showing of prejudice
  • State v. Belkin 549 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Belkin 549 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    Appellant attacks the court’s refusal to give the following requested instruction concerning his taped statement: “If you find that the State has destroyed, or caused to be destroyed, any evidence whose nature, quality, or description is an issue in this case, you may infer that the true fact as against the State’s interest.” P.2d 274 (1964), cited by appellant, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the prosecution *517 destroyed evidence.
  • State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Travis 545 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    We find no error in refusing this instruction for the reason that the notes, P.2d 274 (1964) were not “evidence whose nature, quality, or description [were] at issue in the case,” as the language of the requested instruction indicates.
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Moore 540 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1975
    State v. Vann, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975