defect upon which the trial court relied. Further, there was no prejudice that resulted by the absence of a written order appointing a commission. In the instant case, a review of the transcript of the hearing before the original judge, which the subsequent judge did not have the benefit of, shows that defense counsel did not raise any objections based on the State’s failure to meet the requisites of rule 3.190. Rather, defense counsel’s only objection was that he would prefer to have the victim at trial. Nevertheless, the defense accepted the court’s offer to perpetuate the victim’s testimony and received the continuance it desired, thereby waiving the requisites of rule 3.190(j). Further, as the defense can show no prejudice, Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 774 (Fla.1971)(<HOLDING>), we grant the State’s petition and quash the
holding that reversal is proper only when a rule 16 violation results in prejudice to substantial rights holding that the violation of a rule of procedure prescribed by this court does not call for a reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance with rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant holding that prosecutorial error does not warrant reversal unless substantial prejudice results recognizing this rule holding that the applicable rule of procedure vests a successor judge with judicial discretion to review the jury verdict on a motion for new trial on the ground that such verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence where the record clearly discloses that no question of the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to their testimony will require resolution by him