a defendant must prove that (1) the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate the accused, and (2) there was resulting prejudice.” State v. Smith, 158 Ariz. 222, 227, 762 P.2d 509, 514 (1988) (citing State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984)); see also State v. Speer, 221 Ariz. 449, 457 ¶ 40, 212 P.3d 787, 795 (2009). ¶ 9 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. See, e.g., Speer, 221 Ariz. at 457 ¶ 41, 212 P.3d at 795 (observing that defendant did not show how the evidence would have exonerated him or even mitigated his participation in the crime); Smith, 158 Ariz. at 227, 762 P.2d at 514 (<HOLDING>); Perez, 141 Ariz. at 464, 687 P.2d at 1219
holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it holding that speculation that production of requested documents might reveal exculpatory evidence is insufficient to establish good cause for discovery holding claim requires showing that additional evidence would have been produced that might have led to a different decision holding evidence must rise above mere speculation