In Hill v. State, 331 Ark. 312, 962 S.W.2d 762 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 860, 142 L. Ed. 2d 118, 119 S. Ct. 145 (1998), after a witness had testified, the appellant asked for a copy of the statement. The statement was not available. However, the court found that the statement had been provided to appellant in a former trial. The court wrote that if it was an error at all not to provide the statement, it was harmless. It stated: "In keeping with Rush v. State, 252 Ark. 814, 481 S.W.2d 696 (1972), the trial court made an inquiry as to the whereabouts of the purported statement. The trial court inquired of the State as to whether any diligent effort had been made to locate the information. The State had complied with section 16-89-115 by providing the purported statement to defense counsel at the first trial. This section does not compel a continuing obligation for the State to produce the documents. Appellant did not request a continuance in order to obtain the information from the former defense counsel. Appellant did not call any witnesses to refute Ward's testimony. Appellant has not demonstrated any prejudice through any inconsistency of Ward's testimony, nor has he shown whether the purported statement was a signed written statement or a taped statement made to an agent of the State as required by the definition of "statement" in section 16-89-115 before the State must provide it to defense counsel." (Hill v. State, 331 Ark. at 325, 962 S.W.2d at 768.)