Lash (Christopher) v. State

 him. Lash asserts he was entitled to this instruction because police failed
to gather evidence of the threat that was available at the scene. An
evidentiary presumption is warranted where police demonstrate gross
negligence by failing to gather material evidence. Daniels v. State, 114
Nev. 261, 267-68, 956 P.2d 111, 115 (1998). Here there was no
demonstration that the police acted with gross negligence. Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lash's motion. See
Ouanbengboune, 125 Nev. at 774, 220 P.3d at 1129.
Finally, Lash contends that cumulative error deprived him of
a fair trial. Because he demonstrates only one possible error, we conclude
that Lash is not entitled to relief on this claim. See U.S. v. Sager, 227
F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000) ("One error is not cumulative error.").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
l
Parrag
erry
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
State Public Defender/Carson City
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
MHO OEM gilZW:MEATS