With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by: “1) introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony; 2) showing that the witness is biased; '[or] 3) attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of sections *90.609 or 90.610.” If a party chooses to impeach by attacking the character of a witness, it must do so by admitting evidence in the form of reputation (under section 90.609) or conviction of certain crimes (under section • 90.610). Therefore, “evidence of particular acts of ethical misconduct cannot be-introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness.” Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092, 1096 (Fla. 2011). These questions, were impermissible attacks on Dr. Lloyd’s credibility or character. See also Farinas v. State, 569 So.2d 425, 429 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>); Roosevelt v. State, 42 So.3d 293, 296 (Fla.

A: holding that because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection
B: holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness
C: holding that any error in excluding impeachment evidence about witnesss drug use in general was harmless when witness was heavily impeached in other ways
D: holding that questioning expert witness about specific allegations of misconduct was improper impeachment
D.