of evidence which the State had placed before the court, there is no reason to suspect that the trial judge’s ruling on the motion would have been any different after all the evidence was presented. Therefore, Jackson’s attorney’s failure to move for an acquittal at the conclusion of all the evidence did not render the trial result unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair because in all probability the result would have been the same even if the motion had been made. If Jackson’s trial counsel had renewed his motion, then he would have preserved the issue of sufficiency of the corroborating evidence for appeal. On direct appeal, Jackson would have argued that the motion for judgme 90 Ark. 130, 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986); Cockrell v. State, 256 Ark. 19, 505 S.W.2d 204, 206 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Given that Arkansas ease law does not clearly
holding that carry includes driving a car with guns locked in the glove compartment or the trunk holding that guns located in trunk of car were carried under statute holding that the term carry includes driving a car with guns locked in the glove compartment or the trunk holding recovery of stolen guns from trunk of accuseds car was insufficient corroboration of testimony of accomplice who lived with accused and used his car holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car