prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless. Schopp, 653 So.2d at 1020-21. On this record, it cannot be said that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was not procedurally prejudiced by the State’s discovery violation. The nurse offered expert opinion testimony establishing that the lack of vaginal injury is not unusual in rape cases. Since the defendant’s theory of the case was that the lack of injury to the victim’s vagina proved that a crime did not occur, there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation and/or strategy. Accordingly, the defendant’s judgment and sentence are reversed and this matter is remanded for a new trial. See Ward v. State, 165 So.3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>); Debord v. State, 152 So.3d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA
holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative 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 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 holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt