State v. Thomas, 2016 WL 7799279 (Ct. Crim. App. Ten. 2016)

Defense argues that the expert's testimony should have been limited to prevent him from testifiyng to a degree of scientific certainty. The court held that issue was not preserved and so would be reviewed as plain error. The court holds that the issue does not warrant plain error review because the expert here testified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the NAS reports were not submitted as evidence nor was testimony made about their importance, the federal cases cited by the defendant are not binding on this court, and the expert that testified at the motion hearing agreed with the outcome of the expert in question and testified that the expert had used the widely accepted methods for testing.