hand, and one of the State’s chief witnesses, on the other, were crucial to the case, any evidence tending to prove a motive to lie by the State’s witness is both relevant and admissible. See Barows, 805 So.2d at 122-23. It was important to the State’s evidence that Shimer’s testimony support Pollack’s. If there is any doubt that the witness may have a bias capable of crafting a scenario out of thin air, then the defendant should have a right to explore that bias before the jury. Although whether or not Shimer approved of Robinson’s relationship with Mitchell is not relevant to the crime charged, it may very well be relevant to the issue of his bias towards Mitchell and any motivation he may have had to concoct his testimony. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 679 So.2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. State, 527 So.2d 962 (Fla.
holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding that evidence consisting of the testimony of three witnesses who each had motives to lie was not overwhelming and that prosecutorial misconduct therefore was not harmless error holding that even if witnesses were not timely disclosed appellant had not demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice and therefore any error was harmless holding that it was error not to allow juvenile to present testimony concerning alleged prejudice and bias of two of the states key witnesses the error was not harmless because it went to possible motive the witnesses may have had to exaggerate or even completely fabricate them testimony holding that the error of allowing unsequestered witnesses to testify in violation of a motion to separate witnesses was harmless error because the state presented overwhelming evidence supporting defendants conviction