Expert testimony standard: “When determining whether a method of proof is sufficiently reliable, the trial court “ ‘may look to testimony by an expert specifically relating to the reliability, may take judicial notice, or may use a combination of the two.’ “ . . . . A trial court should look to precedent for guidance if other courts have addressed the method of proof in question. Id. “[W]hen specific precedent justifies recognition of an established scientific theory or technique advanced by an expert, the trial court should favor its admissibility, provided the other requirements of admissibility are likewise satisfied.” Id. When the trial court lacks sufficient precedential guidance it should ‘generally focus on the following nonexclusive “indices of reliability” to determine whether the expert’s proffered scientific or technical method of proof is sufficiently reliable: “the expert’s use of established techniques, the expert’s professional background in the field, the use of visual aids before the jury so that the jury is not asked ‘to sacrifice its independence by accepting [the] scientific hypotheses on faith,’ and independent research conducted by the expert.”'”