The opinion
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge, dissenting.
I would order rebriefing in this case for two reasons. First, because the taped interview of D.K. was not included in appellant’s abstract or addendum, we are unable to conduct the full examination required to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Campbell v. State, 74 Ark.App. 277 , 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). Second, I do not believe that appellant’s brief sets out why any adverse rulings would not arguably support an appeal.
In reaching this conclusion, I do not find that the trial court erred. Such a finding is not necessary prior to ordering rebrief-ing of a no-merit case. In order to determine that an appeal is wholly without merit, or so frivolous that it may be decided without any 11 ¿adversary presentation, we need not determine whether error was committed, but only that the case is not wholly frivolous. “Wholly without merit” or “wholly frivolous” are the standards we must apply in no-merit cases. Justus v. State, 96 Ark.App. 29 , 237 S.W.3d 528 (2006).
Numerous evidentiary rulings in this case were decided adversely to the appellant. I do not believe that the no-merit brief filed in this case adequately explains why none of these rulings would arguably support an appeal. While I do not find that the trial court’s adverse rulings constitute an abuse of discretion, neither can I find that an appeal of the trial court’s decisions regarding admission or rejection of evidence propounded by appellant is “wholly without merit.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent.