Opinion ID: 2460020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The DHS Report as Hearsay

Text: Finally, Dougan asserts that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a witness to read portions of a DHS report about the February 20, 1994, incident. As previously mentioned, Jayme Dougan testified that his father did not enter the victim's bedroom on the night of the rape. On cross-examination, the State attempted to impeach Jayme by reading portions of a statement he gave to a DHS social worker a few days after the alleged rape, and the following colloquy occurred: STATE: [Reading from the DHS report] Stated he saw his dad go to [the victim's] bedroom. JAYME: He just stuck his head in the door. STATE: And he heard [the victim] saying, `stop, stop.' JAYME: No, I didn't. STATE: She [the social worker] made that up? JAYME: I guess she did, `cause I didn't say that. STATE: Stated he, his dad, was in [the victim's] room for about 30 minutes. JAYME: No, he wasn't, either. STATE: You didn't say that; she made it up? JAYME: I guess she made it up, because he didn't go in there. STATE: Stated he knew it was about 30 minutes by watching his clock in his room. JAYME: He never did go in there, so I don't know where they got that from. STATE: So that's another lie the Social Worker made up? JAYME: I guess it is. Dougan did not object to any of the above questions or testimony. Thelma Bean, a Protective Services Supervisor for DHS, testified during the State's case in rebuttal. Bean identified the report made by the DHS social worker who investigated the February 20, 1994 rape. Bean explained that she did not write the report, but as a supervisor it was a regular business practice for her to keep such reports in her office. The State then asked Bean if the report contained a statement regarding whether Jayme saw his father enter the victim's bedroom. Dougan objected on the basis that the report was hearsay. The State argued that the report fell under the business-record exception to the hearsay rule, and the judge overruled Dougan's objection. Thelma Bean then read the following statement from the DHS report: He [Jayme Dougan] stated he saw his dad go into [the victim's] bedroom, and heard [the victim] saying Stop, stop. Stated he, his dad, was in [the victim's] bedroom for about 30 minutes. Stated he knew it was about 30 minutes from watching his clock in his room. On appeal, Dougan argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed Thelma Bean to read this portion of the DHS report because it was hearsay that did not fall under the business-record exception. We do not need to address the merits of this argument because we have said on numerous occasions that when hearsay is erroneously admitted, we will not reverse if it is cumulative of other evidence admitted without objection. Weber v. State, 326 Ark. 564, 933 S.W.2d 370 (1996); Luedemann v. Wade, 323 Ark. 161, 913 S.W.2d 773 (1996); Caldwell v. State, 319 Ark. 243, 891 S.W.2d 42 (1995). Of particular importance are Zufari v. Architecture Plus, 323 Ark. 411, 914 S.W.2d 756 (1996), and Hooper v. State, 311 Ark. 154, 842 S.W.2d 850 (1992), where we refused to consider whether a statement fell under the business-record exception to the hearsay rule, Ark. R. Evid. 803(6), because the same or similar evidence was admitted at trial without objection. In this case, the relevant portions of the DHS report were already admitted without objection during the impeachment of Jayme Dougan. Hence, as in Zufari and Hooper , we need not address whether Thelma Bean's testimony fell under the business-record exception because the same evidence was already admitted at trial without objection. Affirmed.