When this circumstance arises, the appellate courts of New Mexico resort to the three-part test outlined in Lovato and Chouinard to determine whether a defendant’s due process rights have been violated. Finally, the third circumstance arises when the State fails to collect evidence from the crime scene in the first place. Usually, the failure to gather evidence is not the same as the failure to preserve evidence, and that the State generally has no duty to collect particular evidence at the crime scene. See Steffes, 500 N.W.2d at 612; March v. State, 859 P.2d 714, 716 (Alaska Ct.App.1993) (the State’s duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the State has gathered and taken possession of the evidence); State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 733 P.2d 1090, 1094 (Ariz.1987) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); People v. Ventura, 174 Cal.App.3d 784, 220
holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant holding defendant was improperly denied potentially exculpatory evidence holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence