concurring specially.

I concur with the recommendation of Judge Harris. Because the evidence was quite sufficient and because the assistant state attorney did a good job in presenting the case it was more than unnecessary for the judge to intrude. Given the nature of the case, kidnapping, sexual battery, burglary, aggravated battery and grand theft, and the great trauma which would result from having to go through another trial, I am convinced an affirmance is the just thing to do.

Cade was convicted of kidnaping, sexual battery with threatened force, burglary of a conveyance, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and grand theft. The DNA evidence, unchallenged on appeal, strongly supports the jury decision. We affirm.

We are concerned, however, with the judge’s conduct in interposing himself into the trial to question the state’s expert witnesses. We suggest he read Judge Farmer’s excellent discussion of this problem in his specially concurring opinion in Moton v. State, 659 So.2d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA' *8601996). Only because we find his conduct harmless in this case do we affirm.

AFFIRM.