Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Perez, 687 P.2d 1214.

274 citing documents.

State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-64 (1984) (failure of police to request videotape “that is obviously material” entitles defendant to a Willits instruction if defendant can show prejudice).
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sample Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Tommy G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Tommy G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
National Equity v. Mwm Forever Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
This court reviews the denial of a motion to set aside a default judgment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (App. 2010), and may affirm if the superior court was correct for any reason, ¶ 7 (App. 2013)
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(holding that an appellate court is “obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason”).
State of Arizona v. Pablo Isaac Hernandez 474 P.3d 1191 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Pablo Isaac Hernandez 474 P.3d 1191 Ariz. 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
42 (referring to evidence the State “lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve”); (stating the appellate court is “obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason”).
State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(appellate court “obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason”).
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
3 STATE v. STUEBE Opinion of the Court
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Despite the superior court’s reasoning, we will affirm the superior court’s denial of a jury instruction “if the result was legally correct for any reason.”
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the court’s hearsay decision for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 77 (2014), and affirm if it is correct for any reason
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶28 A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction, if he proves that “(1) the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate the accused, and (2) there was resulting prejudice.” ().
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hernandez 443 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Hunter , , 50, , 200 (1983) (instruction required after destruction of evidence) (citing Willits ); see also State v. Perez , , 464, , 1219 (1984) (instruction required where state fails to preserve "obviously material, and reasonably accessible" evidence and prejudice shown).
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”); State v. Boteo–Flores, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (appellate court will uphold ruling if correct for any reason).
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
stances in which fundamental error occurs and noting that “[a] claim of fundamental error 12 State v. Escalante Opinion of the Court is not a springboard to reversal where present counsel is simply second- guessing trial counsel.” ()); n.6 (1984) (finding no error from the trial court’s refusal to give a requested Willits instruction and noting that defense counsel could not claim prejudice anyway because he could have argued the substance of the instruction but “made a tactical decision” to for
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
11 STATE v. WINIKER Decision of the Court ¶44 We review a superior court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion, Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 129, ¶ 42, and uphold the court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State v. Carlson , , 387 ¶ 7, , 1085 (2015) (quoting State v. Perez , , 464, , 1219 (1984) ).
State v. Quinerly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Quinerly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 41 (2003), ).
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Perez , , 464, , 1219 (1984).
Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shyann P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Dep't of Child Safety, ¶ 26 (2017) () ("We are obliged to affirm the trial court's ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.").