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 (0) 1947A

MHO OEM gilZW:MEATS