Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf, 329 P.3d 1049.

104 citing documents.

State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (2014) (citations 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
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. Glissendorf (Glissendorf II) , , ¶ 7
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Defendant must show 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.” ¶ 18 (2014) (quotation omitted).
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Matta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
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
State v. Glissendorf , , ¶ 7
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Bryan Wayne Hulsey Ariz. 2018
We have held that “the same bad-faith test applies to identify violations of either the Arizona due process clause or the federal due process clause.” ¶ 14 (2014).
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶61 A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction upon a showing 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.” ¶ 8 (2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A Willits adverse-inference instruction “adequately protects a defendant’s due process rights” when the “state has destroyed or failed to preserve evidence unless the defendant is prejudiced or the state acted in bad faith.” -51, ¶ 11 (2014).
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction upon proving 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.” ¶ 8, (citations omitted).
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Furthermore, Defendant’s speculation that the contents of the luggage would have tended to support his and Alonso’s conflicting statements regarding how long they planned to stay in Colorado does not sufficiently establish the exculpatory nature of such evidence as to require a Willits instruction.3 ¶ 9 (2014) (“To show that evidence had a ‘tendency to exonerate,’ the defendant 3 In his brief, Defendant implies that he told Officer Callister he was planning to stay in Colorado for one day while
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 v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A defendant is entitled to a Willits instruction upon proving 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.” ¶ 8, (citations omitted).
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“To be entitled to a Willits instruction, a defendant must prove that (1) the [S]tate 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, (citations omitted).
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hafen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 8 (2014) (quotation omitted).
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
Because Carlson objected at trial, “[w]e review [the] rulings regarding a Willits instruction for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 7
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ocamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶16 “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.” ¶ 8, (internal citation omitted).
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
State v. Featherston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014