to testify regarding the victim’s credibility. In reaching our holding, we are mindful of the State’s alternative rationale for affirming on this point. Citing Rule 608(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, the State argues that admission of Neighbors’s testimony was permissible because appellant attacked the credibility of the victim in his opening statement. We observe, however, that Rule 608(a) allows the credibility of a witness to be “supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation,” but “the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Here, Neighbors’s testimony did not fall within the strictures of Rule 608(a), as it was not limited to the victim’s “character for truthfulness.” See Collins v. State, 11 Ark. App. 282, 669 S.W.2d 505 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we cannot say that the evidence was
holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same holding that the lead detectives testimony that it is not unusual for victims or witnesses of crimes to be reluctant to cooperate with police did not improperly vouch for the truthfulness of victims testimony holding that employer controlled the victims will at least in part by using his position as the victims employer holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness