In State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 699 A.2d 596, 619 (N.J. 1997) the state Supreme Court acknowledged that "generally, appellate courts review a trial court's determination of the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion." But the court nevertheless concluded that review of the reliability determination should be de novo. The court reasoned that, "unlike many other evidentiary issues, whether the scientific community generally accepts a methodology or test can transcend a particular dispute." The court felt that, "notwithstanding the trial court's better position to shape the record and make factual determinations, appellate courts retain an important residual role for questions concerning the admission of scientific evidence. Like trial courts, appellate courts can digest expert testimony as well as review scientific literature, judicial decisions, and other authorities." The court concluded that, "when reviewing a decision on the admission of scientific evidence, an appellate court should scrutinize the record and independently review the relevant authorities, including judicial opinions and scientific literature."