dismiss. Third, Steese argues that the police committed prejudicial misconduct by failing to preserve material evidence. After Soules’ truck and trailer were returned to his family, his brother found a gold chain, which belonged to Soules, inside the truck. He informed the police of this, but they were “not concerned.” Later, Soules’ sister found a pair of blood-soaked jeans wrapped in a towel underneath the bed in the trailer. Assuming that the police “had done their job,” Soules’ family simply disposed of the jeans. Due process requires the State to preserve material evidence. State v. Hall, 105 Nev. 7, 9, 768 P.2d 349, 350 (1989). However, this presupposes that the State has possession and control of the evidence at issue. See March v. State, 859 P.2d 714, 716 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, the police never had control of this
holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence recognizing states duty to preserve relevant evidence where practical