Opinion ID: 2547256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lay opinion on signature

Text: Jezdik next argues that it was plain error to allow Detective Woosnam to testify as a lay witness that the signatures on the store receipts matched the signature on Jezdik's voluntary statement. Testimony at trial established Woosnam had no training in handwriting analysis. Thus, it appears at first blush that his testimony that the signatures matched was improper under NRS 50.265(2) as being unhelpful to the jury. [36] However, defense counsel's reason for not objecting to the testimony is not apparent on this record. As a result, we decline to reach this issue under a plain error analysis, [37] and like Jezdik's other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we reserve decision on the merits of any related ineffective-assistance claim for future post-conviction review. [38]