Liscinsky v. State (1997)

But see Liscinsky v. State, 700 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding testimony that witness to crime identified defendant by name as perpetrator at initial investigation immediately following incident was admissible under section 90.801(2)(c) or, in the alternative, was harmless error). [3] The tape-recorded statements of the recanting witnesses were largely accusatory narratives that recited the witnesses' accounts of the shooting and Smith's role in it.

“An error in the introduction of evidence may be considered harmless if the evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence that was properly introduced.” Johnson v. State, 204 So. 3d 521, 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citation omitted); Liscinsky v. State, 700 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“In any event, if such were error, we deem it harmless because the officer’s testimony was merely cumulative of several other witnesses’ testimony at trial.”).

See, e.g., Blanton v. State, 978 So. 2d 149, 157 (Fla. 2008) (erroneous admission of evidence that was “merely cumulative” to “properly admitted evidence” was harmless under DiGuilio standard); Casica v. State, 24 So. 3d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (erroneous admission of evidence “was harmless” where evidence “was cumulative” to other “properly admitted” evidence); Liscinsky v. State, 700 So. 2d 171, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (admission of challenged testimony, if erroneou…

Id. at 739-40 . (emphasis added) (footnote omitted.) See also Liscinsky v. State, 700 So.2d 171, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (officer could testify under section 90.801(2) that a witness to a crime identified the accused by name, as the perpetrator at the initial investigation immediately following the incident).

See Liscinsky v. State, 700 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).