The state of Nevada does not follow either the Daubert or Frye test for the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648 (Nev. 2010). Instead, Nevada follows its state statute, N.R.S. 50.275, and utilizes Daubert as persuasive authority. Id. The statute reads that if scientific or technical testimony will help the trier of fact, then an expert specialized in said knowledge or topic can testify to “matters within the scope of such knowledge.” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 50.275 (West 2017). This rule requires that for expert testimony to be admissible, the court must look into the testimony’s: “(1) qualification, (2) assistance, and (3) limited scope requirements.” Higgs, 222 P.3d 648 (2010). To help consider these requirements, the court should consider whether the expert’s 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.
