Cited by

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

274 citing documents.

State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
(affirming trial - 9 - court’s ruling even though trial judge reached the proper conclusion for the wrong reason).
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 1214 (1984) (appellate court will affirm when trial court reached correct conclusion despite incorrect reasoning).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sepulveda 32 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sepulveda 32 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(This court will affirm a trial court’s ruling if it is legally correct for any reason.).
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Wooten 972 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
The duty of police to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence arises when the evidence is “obviously material.”
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rojas 868 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Varela 873 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
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), , (failure to obtain possession of material evidence plus actual prejudice requires Willits instruction).
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Albrecht 811 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the court held that where the state failed to act in a timely manner to insure the preservation of evidence that was obviously material and reasonably accessible, a defendant was entitled to a Willits instruction after showing he was prejudiced by the loss of the evidence.
State v. Smith 762 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988