that he was defending himself from Morse’s unprovoked attack,” it was obvious that the defense was attempting to show that Harmon had been invited to Morse’s room for drug-related business. Further, this statement should have been admitted during the state’s case under the “rule of completeness.” Where the state has elicited testimony about part of a conversation, a defendant is entitled to cross examine the witness about other relevant statements made during the conversation. Johnson v. State, 653 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The defense has the right to present the whole of the conversation, Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982), as a matter of fairness, Larzelere v. State, 676 So.2d 394, 402 (Fla.1996). See also Sweet v. State, 693 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>); Eberhardt v. State, 550 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st
holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that the defense may present the entire conversation where it goes to the heart of the  defense holding that trial error in a civil case which went to the very heart of the defendants defense and was central to his defense could not be deemed harmless in the absence of any steps by the district court to mitigate the effects of the error holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order