### Kay's defense and convicted him of all but the possession of stolen

property counts.

Almost two years after the verdict, Kay filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The alleged new evidence was obtained as a result of document production related to Frates' civil suit against Twin-Vest and consisted of: a May 1, 2008, invoice from Kay for work done at the Nipton pit; a bill of sale in which Coast to Coast sold equipment to Twin-Vest in lieu of being in default on the promissory note; depositions from Janet Bivens (a former employee of Twin-Vest), Philip Boeckle, and Frates; and a letter from Frates written to the family court on behalf of Kay. Kay asserted that this evidence entirely discredited the Boeckleses' trial testimony that they did not hire or authorize him to recover equipment from the Nipton site and were not aware that he had taken the equipment, and demonstrated that the Boeckles were intimately involved in the seizure of the equipment from the Nipton site. Kay further asserted that this evidence would have established that he acted in good faith when seizing the equipment and changed the outcome of the trial. The district court summarily denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Kay claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial.' We disagree. Kay failed to demonstrate that all of the

'Kay failed to adequately cite to the record in his briefs and provide this court with a copy of the trial transcripts and the transcript of the hearing on the motion for a new trial 

### See NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C); NRAP 30(b)(1). The trial transcripts are essential for resolving this claim. We are able to reach the merits of this claim only because the State provided copies of the trial transcripts in its appendix. We remind Kay's counsel that it is appellant's responsibility to provide this court with all transcripts and documents necessary for this court's review of the issue raised on appeal. NRAP 30(b)(1)-(3).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 2

(0)1947A 44C14(evidence was "newly discovered" or "that even with the exercise of

reasonable diligence it could not have been discovered and produced for
trial." Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1991). Further, much of the evidence is cumulative to other evidence presented at trial, and Kay failed to demonstrate that presentation of this evidence would "render a different result probable upon retrial." Id. Finally, the primary purpose of the alleged new evidence was to impeach the Boeckleses' trial testimony. Although the Boeckleses' testimony was important, Kay presented other testimony at trial aimed at discrediting the Boeckleses' testimony, and their testimony was not so important that further discrediting of their testimony would make a different result at trial reasonably probable. Id. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial, 

### see id.; NRS 176.515, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Cremen Law Offices Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

A)) I 947A <E*9