in jail if she really feared him. The defendant testified and it was unrebutted, that the victim visited him in jail after his arrest. Why she did so was not relevant nor material as to the elements of the crimes charged, nor would it explain what occurred between the victim and defendant on. the evening of the attack. Moreover, during the defendant’s extensive cross-examination of the victim it was revealed that she had a history of reconciling and keeping in contact with the defendant even after being raped and abused by him. Because the evidence that the defendant sought to elicit was not crucial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to recall the victim for further cross-examination. State v. Ellis, 491 So.2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Further, given the
holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that where the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence it is an abuse of the trial courts discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence holding that an ends of justice continuance may be appropriate where the case is unusual or complex holding that the evidence sought to be admitted would have impacted upon the decision of the trial court and was crucial to the states argument and that the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence