Cited by

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

274 citing documents.

State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress absent a clear abuse of discretion, Spears, 184 Ariz. at 284, and will affirm the court’s ruling if it is legally correct for any reason
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶10 A defendant is not entitled to a Willits instruction in a case like this – where a law enforcement officer has merely failed “to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence.” see also Murray, 184 Ariz. at 33, 906 4 P.2d 274 (1964).
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
llits instruction is normally sufficient unless the state has acted in bad faith, when a piece of evidence is fundamental to a defendant’s case, it is not clear that the Willits instruction is enough.” ¶16 “[W]here evidence which might have tended to exonerate the defendant is destroyed while in the state’s possession, a defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction.”
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry 353 P.3d 847 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
We will “affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(recognizing this court will affirm if the ruling was correct for any reason, even if that reason was not considered by the superior court).
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“We may affirm on any basis which is supported by the record.”); (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
d 787, 795 (2009) (observing that defendant did not demonstrate how missing evidence might have exonerated him or mitigated his participation in the crime); (noting there was “nothing except speculation” to suggest that license plate number of get-away vehicle, written on missing piece of paper, was not the defendant’s); (holding no abuse of discretion in denying Willits instruction where defendant “presented no evidence to support his assertion that had the [destroyed] videotape been presented
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 329 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2014
atedly upheld this approach, eventually fashioning a two-element test: “To be entitled to a Willits instruction, a defendant must prove 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.” ( ); ¶ 40
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(appellate court may affirm trial court’s ruling if correct for any reason).
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez 323 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez 323 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(appellate court obliged to affirm trial court’s ruling if result legally correct for any reason).
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
and reasonably accessible,” as well as potentially useful for Glissendorf’s defense.
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(appellate court will affirm trial court’s ruling if result legally correct for any reason).
In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See In re $315,900 U.S. Currency, -16, - 59 (App. 1995); (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any 3 reason.”).
State v. Aguilar 267 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Aguilar 267 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court‟s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”
State v. Chavez 239 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Chavez 239 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008