Admission of expert testimony is within the sole discretion of the trial judge. Abuse of discretion does not exist where defense counsel waited until the eighth day of trial to seek to call a newly-named expert witness without sufficient justification for the delay. The Nevada Supreme Court adopts the rule against admission of witness and prosecution comments regarding a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment rights when such evidence is used to support an inference of guilt. When the district court admits such evidence, this Court will determine the existence of reversible error by application of the same test used for admission of such evidence regarding the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. Reversible error does not exist where a witness makes comments without being solicited as to the specific details of the invocation and without the intention of inferring meaning from the defendant’s invocation of rights.
Balboni, Denise S., "Summary of Sampson v. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 80" (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 569.