when the central issue in the case was the credibility of the eyewitnesses
rather than their capacity to observe. See Lee v. State, 107 Nev. 507, 509,
813 P.2d 1010, 1011 (1991) (holding that eyewitness identification
instructions "might be called for" in certain circumstances, but need not be
given where the strength of an identification was overwhelming).
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Nay, 123 Nev. at 330, 167 P.3d at 433 (reviewing a district
court's refusal to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion).'
Having considered Reed's contentions and concluded that no
relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Saitta
Gibbons Pickering
CC: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Special Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We decline Reed's request to overrule our prior decisions regarding
specific eyewitness identification instructions,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A