Opinion ID: 1183195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Failure to Administer a Blood-Alcohol Test to Milligan

Text: Here Milligan asserts that the state was responsible for the loss of valuable evidence (his level of intoxication) due to the failure of the police to administer a blood-alcohol test to him immediately following his arrest. In Wood v. State, 97 Nev. 363, 632 P.2d 339 (1981), we held that in order for the loss or destruction of evidence to constitute the basis of a reversal the appellant must show either bad faith or connivance on the part of the government or prejudice resulting from the loss. In the instant appeal there is neither an allegation nor proof of bad faith or connivance. We must therefore determine whether Milligan has been prejudiced to a degree requiring reversal. In order to justify a reversal the lost evidence must be reasonably anticipated to be both exculpatory and material to the appellant's defense. Boggs v. State, 95 Nev. 911, 604 P.2d 107 (1979). In Boggs we also held that [i]t is not sufficient that the showing disclose merely a hoped-for conclusion from examination of the destroyed evidence, nor is it sufficient for the defendant to show only that examination of the evidence would be helpful in preparing his defense. 95 Nev. at 913, 604 P.2d 107, citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) and State v. Koennecke, 29 Or. App. 637, 565 P.2d 376 (1977). We fail to discern any prejudice to Milligan resulting from the failure to test his blood-alcohol content. The record indicates that he had continued to drink between the time of the murder and his arrest. Therefore a blood-alcohol test would have been inconclusive as to his degree of intoxication at the time of the crime, several hours before the arrest. Also, Milligan was permitted to introduce other evidence regarding his intoxication, including the supplemental arrest report and Houston's testimony that before the killing Milligan had been drinking brandy and wine fast and fast and fast. This opinion should not be read to mean that law enforcement officers are under no circumstances required to use their own initiative in obtaining a blood-alcohol sample from a suspect. Where the crime and the arrest occur in a reasonable temporal proximity and where the police reasonably believe that the suspect has committed the crime, and it further appears that the suspect's cognitive capacity is impaired by alcohol, a test may be required. That not being the case here, we find no merit to this assignment of error. F.