Opinion ID: 2636745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Coppola's testimony

Text: Thompson contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Coppola to give expert testimony as a lay witness. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. In Nevada, NRS 50.275 governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony. NRS 50.275 states: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify to matters within the scope of such knowledge. The district court has discretion to determine the admissibility of expert testimony, and we review this decision for a clear abuse of discretion. Sampson v. State, 121 Nev. 820, 827, 122 P.3d 1255, 1259 (2005). The district court is in a better position than this court to determine the helpfulness of proposed testimony in light of the material facts in issue. Krause Inc. v. Little, 117 Nev. 929, 934, 34 P.3d 566, 569 (2001). When the district court's exercise of discretion is not manifestly wrong [pursuant to] NRS 50.275, we will not reverse. Id. Coppola testified that, after she finished speaking with the police the night of the attack, she spent time on her own trying to focus on her assailant's appearance. She explained that the training she had received when obtaining her art degree had helped her to remember the proportions of an individual's face. While Coppola testified about this special training, we conclude that it did not constitute expert testimony. Coppola was not testifying about her art knowledge. Rather, she was explaining to the jury how she knew special techniques for remembering her assailant's appearance. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Thompson's objection to Coppola's testimony. [6]