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. Hannah, 583 P.2d 888.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); -2 , -89 (1978).
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Youngblood 844 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
    (negligent loss of potentially exculpatory evidence prejudicial even with Willits instruction) -51 , -201 (1983) (negligent loss of potentially exculpatory evidence prejudicial without Willits instruction), and State v. Perez, 141 Ari
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
    (where the only items connecting the defendant to the crime were destroyed, we found that the defendant had been so seriously prejudiced by the loss of the evidence that he could not receive a fair trial).
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
  • 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. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Youngblood 734 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    with a clear showing of prejudice requires dismissal____ 146 Ariz. at 289 , 705 P.2d at 1339 .
  • 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
    recognized that a Willits instruction will not cure every problem that arises as the result of a destruction of evidence.
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
    See, , (accused charged with arson and filing fraudulent insurance claim was denied due process by state’s negligent destruction of evidence seized from premises destroyed by the fire, since it could not be determined whether the seized evidence was exculpatory).
  • 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
    with a clear showing of prejudice requires dismissal, but in this case Fierson failed to establish the requisite prejudice to entitle him to a dismissal.
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
  • 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
    our supreme court concluded that where there has been a loss or destruction of evidence a conviction should be reversed if (1) there is bad faith on the part of the state, or (2) a defendant was prejudiced by the loss of evidence.
  • 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
    Nevertheless, , the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a felony charge upon the inadvertent destruction of evidence seized by the Tucson Police Department at the scene of the alleged arson.
  • State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
  • Distinguished State v. Schilleman 609 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1980
    which defendant claims requires dismissal in the instant case, is distinguishable.
  • State v. Soloman 607 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Soloman 607 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1978)
  • Scales v. City Court of City of Mesa 594 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1979
  • Scales v. City Court of City of Mesa 594 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Garrison 585 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1978