to get his number from the CL Because the Cl was the person who connected Detective Witt to Molina and because the Cl was present during the drug buy, the Cl’s testimony would have elucidated the transaction. Cf. Harris v. State, 636 So.2d 137, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (disagreeing -with the state that the Cl was not within the state’s power to produce but concluding that the Cl’s testimony would not have elucidated the transaction because the “[Cl] had only a minimal relationship with the case at all and none whatsoever with the defendant himself’). Accordingly, the defense should have been able to comment on the State’s failure to call the Cl as a witness, and the trial court abused its discretion in ruling otherwise. See Jean-Marie v. State, 993 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the State has not shown that
holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue recognizing that trial courts have discretion in regulating comments to be made in closing arguments recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments