2004) (stating that exclusion of a defense witness because of a defense disclosure violation is a severe sanction that should be a last resort reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances); Livigni v. State, 725 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (stating that the severe sanction of defense witness exclusion for witness list violation should be a last resort reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances). When, as in this case, the discovery violation is committed by the defense, special importance attaches to the trial court’s inquiry into alternative sanctions because exclusion of exculpatory evidence implicates the defendant’s constitutional right to defend himself or herself. See Alexander, 931 So.2d at 950; see also McBride v. State, 913 So.2d 696, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial court did not
holding that relevant evidence supporting a defendants theory of defense should not be excluded unless no other remedy suffices holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices holding that due process right to present a defense is subject to forfeiture if not properly asserted in the trial court holding that the exclusion of cumulative evidence did not materially impact defendants right to present a defense recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense