(Fla. 1998). Although the decision to allow a case to be reopened involves sound judicial discretion, not usually interfered with on the appellate level, a denial will be reversed where the request is timely made and the jury will be deprived of evidence which might have had significant impact upon the issues to be resolved. Delgado v. State, 573 So.2d 83, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citation omitted). The supreme court held in Donaldson: Where the case is not technically closed (i.e., counsel have not begun closing argument and the case has not been submitted to the jury), the denial of a defendant’s motion to reopen the case will be reversed if the motion was timely and a proper showing has been made as to why the evidence was omitted. Steffanos v. State, 80 Fla. 309, 86 So. 204 (1920) (<HOLDING>).... Donaldson, 722 So.2d at 181-82 (citations
holding that a trial courts findings should be disturbed only if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction holding that the right to choose counsel cannot be manipulated so as to obstruct the orderly procedure in the courts or to interfere with the fair administration of justice holding that the case should be reopened where the cause has not proceeded so far that the ends of justice would be defeated or the orderly process of the court disturbed holding that an ends of justice continuance may be appropriate where the case is unusual or complex holding that where the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence it is an abuse of the trial courts discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence