DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Youngblood, 844 P.2d 1152.

86 citing documents.

  • State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
  • In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Ehrlich 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
    (“Even on direct appeal, we generally refuse to consider claims that are not raised below.”).
  • In Re Leon G. 26 P.3d 481 Ariz. 2001
    ("Even on direct appeal, we generally refuse to consider claims that are not raised below.").
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
    He urges, however, , and instead adopt the dissent’s approach in that case, as follows: [W]hen the government loses potentially exculpatory evidence, the trial court must “balance the degree of culpability of the government, the materiality of the evidence, and the potential prejudice to the defendant in order to p
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Farley 19 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (Feldman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (accepting the reasoning of federal courts in interpreting Arizona Due Process Clause but stating that federal and state clauses are not “coterminous”).
  • Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
  • Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
  • Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
    as an example of how the court "has rescheduled oral arguments after a new member of the court has been seated" and commended the Youngblood practice to our successors.
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Orendain 932 P.2d 1325 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Dunlap 930 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Similarly, for purposes of state constitutional due process, our supreme court has held that “ ‘[a] defendant is not deprived of due process by the destruction of evidence unless the state has acted in bad faith or the defendant is prejudiced by the loss.’ ” , ( , ).
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    333, 337-338 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
    333, 337 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)
  • State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
    As this court recently held in State v. Youngblood, however, “absent bad faith on the part of the state, the failure to preserve evidentiary material which could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant, does not constitute a denial of due process of law under the Arizona Constitution.”
  • State v. Benson 860 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Benson 860 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Serna 860 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Serna 860 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Lang 862 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    the court recently rejected the argument that the due process clause of the Arizona Constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart with regard to the preservation of evidence by the state.
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    a majority of this court held that in cases where the state failed to preserve evidence, the exculpatory nature of which is unknown, the defendant must show that the state acted in bad faith to implicate due process.