The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow a defense witness to testify as an expert. The defense proffered a forensic scientist and criminal profiler for qualification as an expert. Because the witness’s testimony was offered to discredit the victim’s account of the defendant’s actions and to comment on the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted, it appears to invade the province of the jury. Although disallowing this testimony, the trial court made clear that the defendant would still be allowed to argue the inconsistencies in the State’s evidence.