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. Barnett 531 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Collins 528 P.2d 829 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Miller 501 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1972
    Defendant argues therefore that the trial court erred when it failed to grant the following requested instruction: “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.” , and defendant relies heavily on that case.
  • State v. Hopkins 495 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Hopkins 495 P.2d 440 Ariz. 1972
    we stated: “ ‘The trial court is not forbidden to make reference to the evidence, but is only forbidden to comment thereon.’ ” 96 Ariz. at 189 , 393 P.2d at 277 (quoting State v. Roberts, 144 Wash.
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Vann 463 P.2d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Perez 442 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Perez 442 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    No record was made in the trial court that the instructions were abstract; however, an instruction is abstract only if it goes outside the issues of the case and is not applicable to the facts in evidence
  • Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
  • Wells v. Tanner Brothers Contracting Company 439 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
  • Distinguished State v. Green 436 P.2d 899 Ariz. 1968
    Defendant next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to grant the following requested instruction: “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 of quality are in issue, you may infer that the true fact is against their interest.” , , and defendant relies heavily on that case.
  • Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
  • Davis v. Burington 421 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Willits 409 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966