relevant during the state’s case because the defense theory had not been established by that time, but the cross examination of the witnesses during the state’s case made it clear that the defense’s position was that Harmon was in Morse’s motel room with Morse’s permission and in connection with drug dealings between the two. The defense asked Morse about whether he had received drugs from Harmon or had given Harmon collateral for drugs, and whether he had left the door ajar for Harmon. The defense also asked Morse, since he had testified that no co-workers had been in his room drinking, about empty beer bottles police found in his room. Even if it were true, as the majority states in support of its affirmance, that “The judge had no way of knowing that Harmon’s defense would 1989) (<HOLDING>). Alexander v. State, 627 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st
holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context holding that the trial court must balance the right to counsel of choice against the needs of fairness and the demands of its calendar holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding that the rule of completeness generally allows admission of the balance of the conversation as well as other related conversations that in fairness are necessary for the jury to accurately perceive the whole context of what has transpired recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole