witnesses, lay or expert, the party seeking the exemption can “show” to be not merely helpful, but “essential” to the presentation of its case. Id. Because Spears’s “vague and general” assertion that his expert ‘“was well prepared, and could have helped the defense immeasurably by listening to the testimony of the Commonwealth’s experts and .lending a helping hand on cross examination,’ ” failed to specify how the expert’s absence would unduly burden either the presentation of the defendant’s case or the refutation of the Commonwealth’s theory, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exempt the defense expert. 448 S.W.3d at 788-89. That result is consistent with decisions by other courts construing similar rules. E.g., State v. Traversie, 387 N.W.2d 2 (S.D. 1986) (<HOLDING>). Although it appears that no court has
holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sequestering a criminal defendants fingerprint expert