State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a defendant was prejudiced by destruction of recordings that could have been used to impeach the State’s only witness in a child 22 STATE V. SMITH Opinion of the Court molestation case
• police detective interview recordings destroyed according to then-existing policy meant defendant was entitled to a Willits instruction
• adverse inference charge required where State destroys evidence that has a \tendency to exonerate\ or is \potentially useful\
• adverse inference charge required where State destroys evidence that has a \tendency to exonerate\ or is \potentially useful\
• “To show that evidence had a ‘tendency to exonerate,’ the defendant must do more than simply speculate about how the evidence might have been helpful.” (citations omitted)
• once defendant has shown error, burden shifts to state to prove error harmless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).