blood sample while in possession of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department because they were untimely disclosed. The district court denied Parlet's motion to exclude the printouts because his challenge to the chain of custody was untimely and Parlet fails to demonstrate that this constituted an abuse of discretion. See NRS 174.295(2); Mclellan, 124 Nev. at 267, 182 P.3d at 109. Third, Parlet asserts that the district court abused its discretion by preventing him from questioning the State's expert witness about her personal knowledge of errors made by the chemist who previously tested his blood sample. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by disallowing this line of questioning. See NRS 48.015; NRS 48.035(1). The error however, was harmless, particularly in light of the strong evidence supporting the conclusion that the blood tested was Parlet's and the expert's testimony that she had no personal knowledge of any errors relating to toxicology. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1189, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008) (defining nonconstitutional harmless error). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

GibBons

,J. Douglas Saitta

cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge Christopher R. Arabia Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2