Legal Opinion

State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 2014No. CR-13-0388-PRPublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice BALES,

opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Fifty years ago, this Court held that if the state fails to preserve evidence that is potentially exonerating, the accused might be entitled to an instruction informing the jury that it may draw an adverse inference from the state’s action. See State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 191, 393 P.2d 274, 279 (1964). Today, we reaffirm this principle. Because the trial court erred in refusing to give a Willits instruction and the State has not established that the error was harmless, we reverse the convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial.

I

¶2 In…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. State v. HendersonArizona Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. BoltonArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State v. WillitsArizona Supreme Court · 1964

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon CarlsonArizona Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State of Arizona v. Craig A. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  3. State of Arizona v. Allyn Akeem SmithArizona Supreme Court · 2020
  4. State v. HernandezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  5. State v. ToddCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API