counsel may cross-examine the expert regarding any matter about which the expert testifies in establishing his or her qualifications, both as a basis of arguing that the witness is not qualified as -an expert and to argue that even if he or she is qualified, the jury should not give the opinion testimony great weight. Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So.2d 955, 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 702.5, at 601-03 (2001)). See also Cheshire v. State, 568 So.2d 908, 913 (Fla.1990) (“Any deficiencies in an expert’s qualifications, experience and testimony may be aired on cross-examination_”). Any attack on an expert witness’s credibility is subject to a section 90.403 balancing analysis. See Grau v. Branham, 761 So.2d 375, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the state cross-examined
holding abuse of discretion is established if district court decision was based on an error of law holding that once the trial court determined that allowing the appellee to ask about the appellants expert witnesss drug abuse was more prejudicial than probative its decision to then admit same was an abuse of discretion but amounted to harmless error because it pertained only to a collateral matter holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing government to ask leading questions of eightyearold witness reluctant to testify regarding sexual abuse holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify