Expert Testimony
In 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court, in Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (Nev. 2008) clarified the status of Nevada law relative to the admissibility of expert testimony. In Hallmark, the court began by stating, “The statute governing the admissibility of expert testimony in Nevada district courts is NRS 50.275…” Id. at 650.
If a person is qualified to testify as an expert under NRS 50.275, the court must determine whether his or her expected testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Hallmark at 651. “An expert’s testimony will assist the trier of fact only when it is relevant and the product of reliable methodology.” Id.
In determining whether an expert’s opinion is based upon reliable methodology, a district court should consider whether the opinion is (1) within a recognized field of expertise; (2) testable and has been tested; (3) published and subjected to peer review; (4) generally accepted in the scientific community (not always determinative); and (5) based more on particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, or generalization. Id. at 651-52.
If the expert formed his or her opinion based upon the results of a technique, experiment, or calculation, then a district court should also consider whether (1) the technique, experiment, or calculation was controlled by known standards; (2) the testing conditions were similar to the conditions at the time of the incident; (3) the technique, experiment, or calculation had a known error rate; and (4) it was developed by the proffered expert for purposes of the present dispute. We again note that these factors are not exhaustive, may be accorded varying weights, and may not apply equally in every case. Id. at 652.
