Arizona Supreme Court· 4/23/1984

State v. Perez

Citations

687 P.2d 1214
141 Ariz. 459
1984 Ariz. LEXIS 219

How courts have described this case

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

holding that we will affirm the superior court’s ruling if “legally correct for any reason”
holding that an appellate court is “obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason”
holding that the trial court has discretion to extend a prescribed deadline by court order, in the interest of justice, “provided involved parties will not be prejudiced thereby”
recognizing that law enforcement officers should attempt to secure possession of potentially relevant materials by requesting them from the owner or, if necessary, pursuant to a search warrant
concluding that destruction of a video did not prejudice the defendant because an eyewitness identified the defendant and the defendant offered no proof the video would have proven his mistaken identity defense
concluding that the destruction of a videotape did not prejudice the defendant where an eyewitness unequivocally identified the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant offered no proof that the tape \would have proven his mistaken identity defense\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gordon, Holohan, Hays, Cameron, Feldman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

61 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.