Court Opinion

ID: 9662841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:19:30.606415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:43.010398
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OF DENIAL OF REHEARING JANUARY 22, 1991 Tom Glaze, Associate Justice. In its petition for rehearing, the state does not take issue with this court’s reversal of appellant’s conviction of the delivery of cocaine count that allegedly occurred on August 18, 1989. However, it does argue that this court should have remanded that count for retrial rather than dismissing it. The state is correct, and therefore we modify our December 17,1990 opinion to reflect a remand of that count.  This court has held that reversal for trial error will not preclude retrial. Parker v. State, 300 Ark. 360, 779 S.W.2d 156 (1989). More specifically, when a reviewing court determines that a defendant’s conviction must be set aside because certain evidence was erroneously admitted against him, the double jeopardy clause does not forbid his retrial so long as the sum of the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court — whether erroneously or not — would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988). Here, the point requiring reversal was the trial court’s erroneously admitting into evidence a chemical analysis report which did not conform to the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313(d)( 1) (Supp. 1989). This was clearly trial error. However, when considering the report and other evidence presented by the state, sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction or count in issue. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand that count for possible retrial.  Appellant also petitions for rehearing, but in doing so, merely reargues his earlier contention that Officer Crow’s rebuttal testimony was both improper and prejudicial. Because his petition constitutes nothing more than reargument, we deny appellant’s petition. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 20(g). Corbin and Brown, JJ. not participating.