Montana’s Rule of Evidence 702 mirrors the pre-Daubert federal rule. See M.R.Evid. 702. Since federal rule was amended to incorporate Daubert, the Montana Supreme Court has moved toward Daubert but has sent mixed signals as to when a Daubert challenge is appropriate. Generally, courts “should construe liberally the rules of evidence so as to admit all relevant expert testimony.’” McClue v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2015 MT 222, ¶ 23, 380 Mont. 204, 354 P.3d 604 (quoting Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260, ¶ 23, 367 Mont. 21, 289 P.3d 131. When novel scientific evidence” is involved, Daubert may come into play. See State v. Cline (1996), 275 Mont. 46, 909 P.2d 1171, 1177 (citing State v. Weeks (1995), 270 Mont. 63, 891 P.2d 477 and State v. Moore (1994), 268 Mont. 20, 41, 885 P.2d 457, 470).