unreliable drug recognition evaluation. Repinec relies upon an Oregon 

case that concluded that an incomplete drug recognition evaluation did not 

satisfy the test for the admissibility of scientific evidence set forth in 

Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). State 

v. Aman, 95 P.3d 244, 249 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). However, we have rejected 

Daubert's standard of admissibility, choosing instead to give "Nevada trial 

judges wide discretion, within the parameters of MRS 50.275, to fulfill 

their gatekeeping duties." Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. 1, 17, 222 P.3d 648, 

658 (2010). 

Expert testimony assists the jury if it is relevant and the 

product of reliable methodology. Perez, 129 Nev. at 313 P.3d at 867. 

"Evidence is relevant when it tends 'to make the existence of any fact that 

is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less 

probable." Id. (quoting NRS 48.015). An expert's opinion is the product of 

reliable methodology if the methodology 'is (1) within a recognized field of 

expertise; (2) testable and has been tested; (3) published and subjected to 

peer review; (4) generally accepted in the scientific community (not always 

determinative); and (5) based more on particularized facts rather than 

assumption, conjecture, or generalization." Id. at , 313 P.3d at 869 

(quoting Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 500-01, 189 P.3d 646, 651-52 

(2008) (footnotes omitted)). "These factors may be afforded varying 

weights and may not apply equally in every case." Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Here, Deputy Robinson testified that the methodology used by 

DREs to determine whether an individual is under the influence of a 

controlled substance is a twelve-step protocol that was initially developed 

by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the National Highway 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Traffic Safety Administration. The protocol has since been standardized, 

evaluated in a Johns Hopkins research study, and subjected to a LAPD 

field validation study. It is based on scientific tests and has been accepted 

by medical doctors, optometrists, research psychiatrists, and other medical 

professionals in those fields. And it is used nationwide; in several 

countries across the world; and locally by the White Pine County Sheriffs 

Office, the Nevada Highway Patrol, and the Narcotics Investigation Unit. 

A DRE administers the twelve-step protocol by conducting a series of 

tests. Based on the totality of the test results, the DRE renders an opinion 

as to whether the subject is under the influence of a controlled substance. 

The absence of one step in the protocol does not prevent the DRE from 

rendering an opinion, and the failure to test the suspect's blood or urine 

for controlled substances does not render the DRE's opinion invalid. 

Repinec examined Deputy Robinson; the district court heard 

the parties' arguments for and against the admission of this evidence; and 

the district court found that the DRE program is accepted scientifically, 

Deputy Robinson is a qualified DRE, and Deputy Robinson could offer his 

expert opinion. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by admitting this expert testimony and that absence of the 

confirmatory step from the evaluation goes to the weight of the evidence 

and not its admissibility. 

Limited scope requirement 

Repinec also claims that Deputy Robinson exceeded the scope 

of his specialized knowledge by presenting medical and scientific 

conclusions in a manner that cast an aura of scientific certainty to his 

testimony and by identifying the drugs that he had ingested. However, 

Repinec did not object to the testimony that he challenges, the alleged 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 194Th ,^e 

.21,5242tit- N634 
Saitta 

J. 

errors do not appear plainly on the record, and we conclude that he has 

not demonstrated plain error. See Gallego v. State, 117 Nev. 348, 365, 23 

P.3d 227, 239 (2001) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error), 

abrogated on other grounds by Nunnery v. State, 127 Nev. , n.12, 

263 P.3d 235, 253 n.12 (2011). 

Having concluded that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by admitting Deputy Robinson's expert testimony into evidence, 

we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Pie/Itht tup , J. 

Pickering 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge 

State Public Defender/Ely 

State Public Defender/Carson City 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County District Attorney 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 19474 ce