Opinion
No. 69918
01-19-2017
MYKEL TYREL BROWN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Appellant Mykel Brown appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict of two counts of conspiracy to violate the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, trafficking in a controlled substance, and three counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.
First, Brown claims the district court abused its discretion by allowing numerous photographs to be introduced at trial. Specifically, he claims the photos were redundant and unnecessary and the probative value of the numerous photographs was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. Brown failed to object below on the basis the numerous photographs were redundant and unnecessary. Failure to object generally precludes appellate review. See Dieudonne v. State, 127 Nev. 1, 4-5, 245 P.3d 1202, 1205 (2011). Brown failed to provide this court with copies of the photographs to review, failed to cite to the record where the photographs were entered, and failed to make any specific arguments as to the contents of the photographs or how they were more prejudicial than probative other than arguing there were numerous photographs admitted. Therefore, because Brown failed to object or to provide this court with necessary documents or citations to the record, we decline to address this claim on appeal. See NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C) (("Every assertion in the fast track statement regarding matters in a rough draft transcript or other document shall cite to the page and volume number, if any, of the appendix that supports the assertion."); Thomas v. State, 120 Nev. 37, 43 n.4, 83 P.3d 818, 822 n.4 (2004) ("Appellant has the ultimate responsibility to provide this court with portions of the record essential to determination of issues raised in appellant's appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Second, Brown claims the district court abused its discretion by allowing a person to testify who was not properly qualified as an expert. We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 498, 189 P.3d 646, 650 (2008).
After holding a hearing on whether to admit the expert testimony, the district court determined the expert was qualified in an area of "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge." See NRS 50.275. Specifically, the district court concluded the police officer was an expert in how drug sellers use social media to market their activities. The district court also concluded the expert's specialized knowledge would "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," but limited the expert's testimony to the scope of his specialized knowledge. See id. Based on the testimony at the hearing and the district court's findings, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert testimony. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Wentworth Law Office
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk