Opinion ID: 1995978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Tracey's Trial Testimony

Text: The defendant contends that the trial justice erred in permitting Steven's mother, Tracey, to testify (over objection) that, later in the same day on which she had found him and her twelve-year-old stepson (Fred Jr.) unclothed in bed together, Steven stated to her: I only did it because Leroy did it to me. The defendant alleges that this testimony by Tracey was inadmissible hearsay evidence because it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; he also contends that the testimony does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. In contrast, the prosecution contends that Tracey's statement was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather was offered to show the jury how the entire chain of events    was set in motion. The prosecution further contends that, if this Court should find Tracey's statement to be violative of the hearsay evidence rule, it should deem it to be harmless error and not prejudicial to defendant as being merely cumulative. Even if the quoted statement by Tracey was violative (in whole or in part) of the rule against hearsay evidence [24] and the trial justice erred in admitting said statement, we would consider the trial justice's error in allowing this testimony to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Perez, 882 A.2d at 590. This Court has stated that [i]t is well established that the admission of hearsay evidence is not prejudicial when the evidence is merely cumulative and when defendant's guilt is sufficiently established by proper evidence. State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1032 (R.I.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Micheli, 656 A.2d 980, 982 (R.I. 1995). We have defined cumulative evidence as being that which tends to prove the same point to which other evidence has been offered. Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1032 (internal quotation marks omitted). When we seek to determine whether or not a particular piece of evidence is cumulative, the test is a retrospective one, administered at the close of all the evidence to determine whether the admission of certain evidence was harmless in light of all the evidence admitted on that point. Id. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Tracey's testimony was merely cumulative. Tracey's testimony did not reveal anything other than what Steven himself had already testified to at trialat which time he was subjected to cross-examination by defendant's counsel. See Lynch, 854 A.2d at 1032. Accordingly, we conclude that the admission of Tracey's statement, even if it was inadmissible hearsay, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.