With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 518, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla. 2002)). “Although the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is not per se reversible error, see [State] v. Schopp, 653 So.2d [1016,] 1020 [(Fla. 1995)], harmful error is presumed when a Richardson inquiry is not conducted.” Portner v. State, 802 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Mobley v. State, 705 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). If the reviewing court finds that there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation prejudiced the defense or if the record is insufficient to determine that the defense was not materially affected, the error must be considered harmful. In other words, only if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedural 14) (<HOLDING>); Kipp v. State, 128 So.3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA

A: holding that the states failure to designate its expert witnesses was not harmless in trial for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation where it was reasonably possible that defendant would have altered his trial preparation or strategy and that defendant would have deposed experts and possibly procured his own expert
B: holding that the proffered changes in strategy would not have altered trial courts judgment
C: holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy
D: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
A.