for the same reason we reject application of the test in Lovato and Chouinard. Both Trombetta and Youngblood are cases where evidence was seized by the State and subsequently destroyed, rather than eases where the State never gathered the evidence in the first place. See Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 482, 104 S.Ct. at 2530-31 (the arresting officers failed to preserve breath samples from drivers accused of driving while intoxicated); Young-blood, 488 U.S. at 53-54, 109 S.Ct. at 334-35 (the State failed to properly preserve samples and evidence of sexual assault). Consequently, the test ou (en banc) (stating the rule that the State does not have a duty to gather and present all physical evidence conceivably germane to its case); State v. Heth, 230 Mont. 268, 750 P.2d 103, 105 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Judge, 675 P.2d at 225 (noting that Brady
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence