Cotner (David) v. State ( 2013 )

 did not testify as an expert. Rather, the officer's opinion was based on his
own personal observations and investigations in cases involving copper
wire theft. While appellant contends that the officer relied on "10 to 12
reports" in forming his opinion, the record reflects that the officer testified
that he had been personally involved in "10 or 12 cases." Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the officer did not testify
as an expert and that a mistrial was not warranted.
Second, appellant argues that the district court erred by
denying his motion for a mistrial based on a violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Appellant contends that the State violated
Brady by failing to disclose that police officers found wire in appellant's
pocket at the time of his arrest. We conclude that the district court did not
err in finding that a mistrial was not warranted because evidence of the
wire was not favorable to the defense, and the prosecution as a general
rule does not have a duty to disclose inculpatory evidence to the defense.
Mazzan v. Warden, 116 Nev. 48, 66-67, 993 P.2d 25, 36-37 (2000); Furbay
v. State, 116 Nev. 481, 487, 998 P.2d 553, 557 (2000). Therefore, we
• #1P-L
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
° J.
Gibbon s
J.
Doug
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A