or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred. Trial preparation or strategy should be considered materially different if it reasonably could have benefited the defendant. In making this determination every conceivable course of action must be considered. If the reviewing court finds that there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation prejudiced the defense or if the record is insufficient to determine that the defense was not materially affected, the error must be considered harmful. In other words, only if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless. Id. at 1020-21. See also Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705 (Fla.2002)(<HOLDING>). Here, our review of the record reveals that
holding that where the state commits a discovery violation the standard for harmless error is extraordinarily high a defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable probability that the defendants trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred and a states discovery violation is harmless only if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced holding that discovery violation hearing was required to determine whether defendant was procedurally prejudiced by the states nondisclosure of veterinary assistant as expert witness in defendants trial for animal cruelty holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that trial courts failure to conduct richardson hearing concerning states discovery violation in not designating a detective as an expert was not harmless even though detectives testimony was brief appellate court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation