testified in his defense that he had no prior knowledge of cocaine being in his house and that he had never sold drugs, the State called a rebuttal witness to testify that he had traded auto parts with the appellant in exchange for cocaine in the past and that he had used cocaine with the appellant. This court held that because the defense was lack of knowledge, the testimony of the State’s rebuttal witness “was proper both as rebuttal and as evidence of prior acts for the purpose of showing knowledge under Ark.R.Evid. 404(b).” Id. This court also concluded that because the rebuttal witness satisfied this court’s definition of such a witness, the State was not required to disclose information regarding this witness prior to trial. Id. See also Isbell, 326 Ark. at 26, 931 S.W.2d at 79 (<HOLDING>). Using our reasoning in Pyle, we conclude that
holding that the disclosure of proper rebuttal witness was not required 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 defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that the objection had been sufficiently timely when the defense waited until the governments rebuttal to object to a statement made during the governments closing statement