With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.1988) (an arrest is not admissible grounds for impeachment under Rule 90.610). Having found preserved error in the prosecution’s cross-examination of the witness Delafield, the question becomes whether the error was harmless. When taken together with a similar type of impeachment directed against defense witness Brazel, we cannot find that the state has met its burden of proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Reversal is required under Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986), because the state did not establish that Dela-field had been convicted of a crime and also improperly inquired into the specifics of the alleged offense. See also Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976) (<HOLDING>). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. DANIEL

A: recognizing the inherent anxiety associated with pending criminal charges
B: holding without the benefit of argument by the parties that a petty larceny conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes
C: holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value
D: holding evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes
D.