denies any complicity in the crime charged . . ., [a lesser-included offense] instruction is not only unnecessary but is erroneous because it is not pertinent." Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 187, 414 P.2d 592, 595 (1966). Therefore, Follett is not entitled to relief. Follett also contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to testify because her testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing, and misleading. We disagree. The expert testified that the victim displayed some symptoms consistent with other women who had been sexually assaulted and that the victim's reasons for delay in reporting the sexual assault were consistent with the expert's experience in treating more than one hundred patients who had been victims of sexual assault. We conclude that this testimony was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. See NRS 48.015; NRS 48.035; see also NRS 50.345. To the extent Follett objects to the State failing to elicit the basis for the expert's testimony during direct examination, Follett could have elicited this information on cross- examination. See NRS 50.305. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the expert witness to testify. Having considered Follett's contentions and concluded that he is not entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

2 cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

7=S=COMEMPMIMMIN&7Mal