In a child homicide case, the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing the State’s medical experts to testify that their review of the medical records and other available information indicated that the victim’s injuries were consistent with previously observed cases involving intentionally inflicted injuries and were inconsistent with previously observed cases involving accidentally inflicted injuries. The defendant asserted that these opinions rested “on previously accepted medical science that is now in doubt” and that, because “[c]urrent medical science has cast significant doubt” on previously accepted theories regarding the possible causes of brain injuries in children, there is currently “no medical certainty around these topics.” The court rejected this argument, noting that there was no information in the record about the state of “current medical science” or the degree to which “significant doubt” has arisen with respect to the manner in which brain injuries in young children occur.