State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf
235 Ariz. 147
| Ariz. | 2014Background
- Glissendorf was tried in 2012 for three counts of child molestation; Count 1 involved his niece E.G. with reports dating 1997–1999, disclosed in 2001.
- The state recorded E.G.’s 2001 interview on a police tape; CPS recorded video; both recordings were later destroyed.
- Counts 2–3 involved I.K. and A.K., with I.K. testifying about acts in 2009–2010; A.K. was asleep during the incident, so I.K. provided evidence for both counts.
- Glissendorf sought a Willits instruction (adverse inference for destroyed evidence) regarding the 2001 recordings; trial court denied.
- The court admitted C.L.’s testimony under Rule 404(c) about a 1976 Nevada incident; Glissendorf objected.
- Jury convicted Counts 1 and 2, acquitted Count 3; the Court of Appeals reversed only Count 1 and remanded for 404(c) clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Willits instruction was required | Glissendorf urged an adverse-inference instruction. | The State urged not to abrogate Willits and to require bad faith. | Willits instruction required; error not harmless for both counts. |
| Impact of destroyed evidence on multiple counts | Loss prejudiced defense across counts via impeachment and testimonial impact. | No separate argument showing prejudice per count. | Error affected both Counts 1 and 2; reversal warranted. |
| Relation of Willits to due process standards | Willits aligns with due-process protections for innocent destruction. | Willits not constitutionally required; harmless apart from state theory. | Arizona preserves Willits to balance innocence and state duty; not overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (Ariz. 1964) (adverse-inference where evidence destroyed may be inferred against state)
- State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290 (Ariz. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion review for Willits instruction)
- State v. Smith, 158 Ariz. 222 (Ariz. 1988) (two-element test for Willits: missing evidence and prejudice)
- State v. Speer, 221 Ariz. 449 (Ariz. 2009) (distinguishes Willits from due-process Trombetta framework)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due-process standard for destroyed evidence requires bad faith)
- State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9 (Ariz. 1995) (Willits standard: evidence potentially helpful and prejudice)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (harmless-error review burdens state to prove no impact)