was crying when she arrived, it appears, at least for some time prior to her arrival, Medrano had stopped crying. For all these reasons, we conclude that Medrano was not under the “extreme and continuing stress” of the battery at the time of Officer Stuffs arrival; therefore, her statements to Officer Stuff were not admissible as excited utterances. D. The State’s Claim of Harmless Error The State then claims that, even if Medrano’s statements to Officer Stuff were improperly admitted as excited utterances, the testimony was cumulative and the error was harmless. This argument fails in the first instance. Officer Stuffs testimony at trial was not cumulative; rather, it was the only testimony that supported the State’s strangulation charge against Young. See Turner, 958 N.E.2d at 1059 (<HOLDING>). It is axiomatic that improper admission of
holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction