was no abuse of discretion in this regard. III. Rebuttal Witness Cluck next urges that the circuit court erred when it allowed the State to call Sergeant Jerry Pittman as a rebuttal witness, because he was not disclosed as a witness by the State prior to trial. Cluck further contends that the court erred by allowing Sergeant Pittman to testify about items found pursuant to a prior unrelated search of Cluck’s home, because his testimony was unduly prejudicial and cumulative. The real question in this case, although not described as such by Cluck, is whether Sergeant Pittman was a proper rebuttal witness. Cluck appears to concede in his brief that the State is not required to disclose a proper rebuttal witness by citing this court to Isbell v. State, 326 Ark. 17, 931 S.W.2d 74 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Cluck, however, contends that the items
holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that the prosecutor is not required to provide the defense with the names of rebuttal witnesses because until the defense case has been presented the state cannot know of witnesses needed for rebuttal holding that the governments late disclosure of a statement by a government witness did not require reversal under the jencks act where the defendants were allowed a second chance to crossexamine the witness holding that counsels failure to call an expert rebuttal witness does not constitute ineffectiveness the pcra petitioner must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance his cause holding that the disclosure of proper rebuttal witness was not required