Yes, and as tara at CTH points out, in Diaz v. State, 747 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) the issue was whether the ME could be cross examined about the blood-alcohol levels of the victim, not whether the ME could testify as a defense witness about the levels. In fact, the ME was called by the defense, and did testify as to the results.
At least Diaz v. State was about the toxicology of the victim. (I missed that when I made my previous post. Sorry about that.)
The decision also includes a passing comment on a question not before the court.
[T]he toxicological results, without the defendant's testimony [that he knew that the victim had a reputation for violence when intoxicated], would have been irrelevant.
It is undisputed that Zimmerman didn't know who Martin was, so there is no question of Zimmerman knowing anything of Martin by reputation.
Unless the defense has some alternate theory of relevance, I think this one goes to the prosecution.
This defense may concede it. It is only the prosecution's speculation that the defense wants to introduce the toxicology report.