Opinion ID: 1348602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The sufficiency of the police investigation

Text: The victim reported the assaults to her grandmother. The police were thereafter notified. Detective David Dunn (Dunn), an officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's sexual assault department, interviewed the victim. Dunn then set up an appointment for the victim to be medically examined. Sterling asserts that the police conducted an insufficient investigation into the victim's allegations. The core of his assertion is that Dunn did not: (1) take statements from the victim's mother (although Dunn did talk to her over the phone); (2) take statements from the victim's grandmother (although Dunn did interview her); and (3) talk with anyone from Sterling's family. Sterling argues that the investigation violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1965), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that intentional suppression of material evidence by the prosecution constituted a violation of due process. A conviction may be reversed when the State loses evidence if the defendant is prejudiced by the loss, or the evidence was lost in bad faith by the government. Sparks v. State, 104 Nev. 316, 319, 759 P.2d 180, 182 (1988). The defendant has the burden of showing that the evidence sought would be exculpatory and material to his defense. Id. Sterling has failed to demonstrate that any evidence has been lost or destroyed. The fact that Dunn did not take statements or talk with Sterling's family did not preclude defense counsel from so investigating. In fact, Sterling introduced most of the people whom he claims Dunn insufficiently investigated as witnesses. We reject this argument.