524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.1988) (an arrest is not admissible grounds for impeachment under Rule 90.610). Having found preserved error in the prosecution’s cross-examination of the witness Delafield, the question becomes whether the error was harmless. When taken together with a similar type of impeachment directed against defense witness Brazel, we cannot find that the state has met its burden of proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Reversal is required under Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986), because the state did not establish that Dela-field had been convicted of a crime and also improperly inquired into the specifics of the alleged offense. See also Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976) (<HOLDING>). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. DANIEL
holding without the benefit of argument by the parties that a petty larceny conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value recognizing the inherent anxiety associated with pending criminal charges holding evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted