reviewing the admission of novel and complex scientific evidence, to assure itself that such evidence is reliable and generally accepted. See, e.g., Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 214, 478 A.2d 364 (recognizing such an obligation and acknowledging that the Court has power to order the trial court to conduct additional hearings to evaluate the claims of competing experts and to determine the reliability of the scientific evidence). As such, we must undertake a de novo review of that aspect of the record and can supplement the record with judicial opinions, scientific articles, and our own analysis. See Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281, 289-90 (Colo.1995) (ruling that admission of novel DNA evidence “is a question of law” subject to de novo review); Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268, 274 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); People v. Miller, 173 Ill.2d 167, 219
recognizing de novo standard of review recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law holding that trial courts ruling admitting dna evidence is subject to de novo review and is reviewed as a matter of law rather than by an abuseofdiscretion standard