Opinion ID: 2423833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Merely Cumulative

Text: Completely apart from any issue of Mr. Johnson's nickname, Ms. Reed unequivocally identified defendant as the assailant, both in her initial statement to police officers and again at trial. Ms. Reed had known Mr. Johnson for two to three years; he occasionally spent the night at her apartment; she knew what clothing he was wearing on the evening of the assault; and she was able to identify him for the police when they questioned her about the assault. [7] Moreover, at the trial, when describing the incident, Ms. Reed testified without objection: A I saw Dang come from back around the corner. Q You saw Dang come from around the corner? A Yes. Q Kendall Johnson? A Yes.    Q And where did he go? A To my porch. Q And what did he do when he got to the porch? A He stood there and axed [ sic ] Donald for his chain. Detective A'Vant, who was also familiar with defendant by his given name, Kendall Johnson, testified as follows: Q [Y]ou indicated that you recognized the defendant, Kendall Johnson, correct? A Yes, that's correct. Q And, prior to April 1st of 2008, did you know Kendall Johnson? A Yes. In light of Ms. Reed's positive identification of defendant as Mr. Washington's attacker, and Det. A'vant's clear identification of the defendant, there is an inescapable conclusion that, even if there were a question about the admissibility of the testimony as to the defendant's nickname, such testimony was merely cumulative and therefore not prejudicial to Mr. Johnson. See State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1032 (R.I.2004); State v. Micheli, 656 A.2d 980, 982 (R.I.1995); State v. Angell, 122 R.I. 160, 168, 405 A.2d 10, 14 (1979) ([T]he admission of hearsay evidence is not prejudicial when the evidence is merely cumulative and when [the] defendant's guilt is sufficiently established by proper evidence.).