argues that the trial court misapplied the Daubert standards for expert witnesses, adopted by this Court in State v. Streich, 163 Vt. 331, 342-43, 658 A.2d 38, 46-47 (1995), in its pretrial ruling that defendant’s expert could testify regarding the reenactment only as a lay witness. Defendant further argues that the court’s mid-trial ruling erroneously excluded the reenactment evidence altogether for lacking probative value despite the fact that the reenactment was substantially similar to the actual event. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the reenactment under Rule 403 and therefore do not reach defendant’s argument concerning the trial court’s failure to apply Daubert. See United States v. Ramirez-Robles, 386 F.3d 1234, 1246 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 27. We have not specifically addressed the
holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403 holding that evidence regarding the 510k process and enforcement should be excluded under rule 403 holding that a trial court need not perform a 403 balancing test on the record holding that under daubert and state law principles the trial court is mandated to order a pretrial or status conference to discuss and simplify any daubert issues or if those issues are still not resolved to hold a pretrial daubert hearing holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion under rule 403 by allowing evidence that provided background for the crime charged