Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lopez, 786 P.2d 959.

65 citing documents.

State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
Sufficiency of Evidence ¶109 “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Lopez (Lopez I)
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gaines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶6 “A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶21 “A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”
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
Indeed, we have previously used the phrase “potentially helpful” interchangeably with “tendency to exonerate.” See, e.g., Murray, 184 Ariz. at 33, 906 P.2d at 566 ( ) (“A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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
By this standard, a defendant need not establish with certainty that the lost evidence was exculpatory; an instruction is required if the state “failed to preserve material evidence that might aid the defendant.” 113, (“A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”).
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. McKenna 214 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
E.g., Ariz.Code § 43-2903 (1939); Ariz.Code § 4585 (1928); -12 , (“The determination of punishment is wholly within the discretion of the jury upon their consideration of all aspects of the ease.”), , , (“[T]he question of punishment in first degree murder cases is wholly within the jury’s discretion____”).
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. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(before 1973 amendments, judge or jury had full discretion).
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
¶ 7 To that end, Flynt argues that the resisting arrest statute contains language similar to the phrase at issue here and has been construed to require actual risk of harm to another
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
In State v. Lopez, we held that a prior conviction for resisting arrest did not death qualify the defendant because conduct that only created a “substantial risk” of physical injury to an officer was not conduct “involving the use or threat of violence.”
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
“A Willits instruction is appropriate when the state destroys or loses evidence potentially helpful to the defendant.”
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 645 , 111 S. Ct. 2491, 2504 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991)
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Maturana 882 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ramirez 871 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1994
See Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 178 , 800 P.2d at 1286
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
State v. Gallegos 870 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1994
(toxicologist’s testimony that tests revealed sexual penetration occurred before victim’s death disposed of defendant’s argument that sexual assault occurred after death).
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Lopez 857 P.2d 1261 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
See, e.g., Hinchey, 165 Ariz. at 440 , 799 P.2d at 360 ; , , cert.
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992