its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, at trial, the State presented absolutely no argument or evidence to show that it would be prejudiced by the admission of the audiotape. In fact, it was clear that the State actually anticipated that the audiotape would be admitted. Further, given the short length of the audiotape and its limited content, there is no evidence to support any finding that the jury would have been confused or misled by its admission. To the extent that certain of Mateo’s wife’s statements could be seen as irrelevant, those statements could have been redacted so as to avoid undue prejudice while still allowing Mateo to present the portions that supported his defense. See Story v. State, 589 So.2d 939, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the trial court’s ruling that the
holding that any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory holding prosecutors arguments questioning duongs failure to present evidence of misidentification did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense because prosecutor did not call upon defense to disprove the occurrence of a crime but rather pointed out that evidence supporting defense theory was thin holding that relevant evidence supporting a defendants theory of defense should not be excluded unless no other remedy suffices holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices