Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 762 P.2d 509.

52 citing documents.

State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Togar, 248 Ariz. at 575 ¶ 27
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 A Willits instruction is only provided where the defendant shows 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.” Glissendorf, 235 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 8 ().
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“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.” (citation omitted).
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Byers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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
Glissendorf II , , ¶ 8, (quoting State v. Smith , , 227, , 514 (1988) ); see also State v. Speer , , ¶ 40, ; State v. Broughton , , 399, , 488 (1988).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“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.” (citation omitted).
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 8, quoting State v. Smith , , 227, , 514 (1988).
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“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.” (citing Perez, 141 Ariz. at 464, 687 P.2d at 1219).
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction upon proving: “(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.” ¶ 8 (2014) ( ¶ 40 (2009), ).
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
A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction if “the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate the accused.” Glissendorf, 235 Ariz. at 150 ¶ 8, 329 P.3d at 1052 ( ).
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“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.”
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
To be entitled to a Willits instruction, Featherston “must prove that (1) the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate [him] and (2) there was resulting prejudice.”
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bermudez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, e.g., State v. Speer, 3 STATE v. BERMUDEZ Decision of the Court ¶ 41, (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 instruct
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets 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
¶8 The Court has repeatedly 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. 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
Accordingly, while a defendant must do more than simply speculate that the unpreserved items would have been helpful to his case, see, -64, -41 (App. 1996); he is entitled to an instruction if he can demonstrate that the lost evidence would have been material and potentially useful to a defense theory supported by the evidence.
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
¶40 To receive a Willits instruction, the “defendant must show (1) that the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence having a tendency to exonerate him, and (2) that this failure resulted in prejudice.”
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
(“A Willits instruction must be predicated on a theory supported by the 20 evidence, or else it should not be given, because such would tend to mislead the jury.”).
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
As such, we have repeatedly acknowledged that “disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, provided the challenged conduct had some reasoned basis.”
Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
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
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Sanchez 797 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Torres 781 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
“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.”