The admissible testimony from the officer that there were at least seven bullet holes in the wall and door jamb, and that from his experience the five bullet holes in the wall could have been made from someone sitting on the couch in the living room, corroborated her testimony. He also testified that he had recovered a .22 rifle from the bedroom Sharon and Stuit had shared. From Shannon's testimony as to her personal observations and the admissible corroborating testimony of the officer, the State established the occurrence of the shooting and the identity of the shooter. The jury was entitled to judge Stuit's credibility and reject his testimony in favor of Shannon's testimony which contained proof of the elements of the crime charged in that Stuit was the shooter and did the shooting in December. The officer's testimony as to the specific date was irrelevant and harmless as there was sufficient evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, upon which the jury could properly convict absent this testimony.
Cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same character to the same point.
The officer's testimony as to the identity of the shooter after Shannon's testimony was merely cumulative and thus harmless. We hold therefore that the admission of the officer's hearsay testimony that Stuit had committed the offense and that it occurred on a specific date did not result in prejudice to Stuit and was therefore harmless error.