With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". added). On re-direct, the prosecutor had Ceocar-elli confirm that he picked out the defen dant at the live line-up and that there were five (5) men involved in the line-up. Defense counsel requested to re-cross-examine Ceocarelli about the pre-trial line-up identification. The trial court refused defense counsel’s request. A trial court’s decision not to allow re-cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hurst v. State, 825 So.2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Louisy v. State, 667 So.2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing defense counsel from re-crossing Ceocarelli. Defense counsel opened the door to the line-up issue during cross-examination and no new issues were raised on re-direct. See Hurst, 825 So.2d 517 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s

A: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits
B: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony on matters not noticed where the appellants trial counsel was well versed in those matters and capable of crossexamining the experts effectively
C: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds
D: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing recross where the prosecutor did not raise any new matters during redirect
D.