release. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 9.6. Our supreme court has stated that a hearing held pursuant to Rule 9.6 is not a hearing of an adversarial nature that requires representation by counsel. See Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384, 548 S.W.2d 822 (1977). Thus, the liberty interest at stake at a bond-revocation hearing is not equivalent to the liberty interest at stake in a criminal trial, as is reflected in the lower standard of proof required to revoke a defendant’s bond. It follows then, that a defendant may not have the same motive and opportunity in developing or attacking testimony in a bond-revocation hearing as he would in a trial or even a preliminary hearing, proceedings which are undisputably adversarial in nature. Compare Hamblin v. State, 44 Ark. App. 54, 866 S.W.2d 119 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The State asserts that appellant’s motivation
holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested holding admission of preliminary hearing testimony did not violate the sixth amendment where defendants motive during crossexamination was the same as at trial holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause hearing respecting defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive