ARK. ] 273 James A. FERGUSON v. STATE of Arkansas CR 99-999 26 S.W3d 787 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 5, 2000 APPEAL & ERROR - MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING ORAL ARGUMENT - DENIED. - Where appellant timely filed his request for oral argument contemporaneously with his reply brief, the supreme court denied appellee's motion to reconsider its order granting oral argument. Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Oral Argument; denied. Hampton, Larkowski & Benca, by: Patrickj Benca, for appellant. Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee. ER CURIAM. Appellee, State of Arkansas, filed the instant P motion urging this court to reconsider our order granting appellant's motion for oral argument. In support of its position, the State contends that we granted appellant's request without the benefit of the State's response and prior to the time that such response was due. Further, the State claims that Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1(a) (2000), prohibits oral argument in this case. Rule 5-1(a) provides, in part, that lalny party may request oral argument by filing, contemporaneously with that party's brief, a letter, separate from the brief, stating the request with a copy to all parties." (Emphasis added.) The State's interpretation of the rule is that a party's request must accompany their initial appellate brief. [1] In response, appellant notes that the language of Rule 5- 1(a) does not include such a limitation nor does this construction make sense. For example, an appellee may raise an argument in its reply brief that would influence an appellant's determination of whether an oral argument would "significantly aid the decision-making process." See Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1(a)(3). We agree. Here, appellant timely filed his request for oral argument contemporane-
274 [ 342 ously with his reply brief.' Accordingly, we deny the State's motion to reconsider our order granting oral argument.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.