his ex-wife had masturbated him with her hand, and he had ejaculated into her hand. The State’s experts acknowledged that someone other than defendant could have placed the sperm on the underwear, and a secondary transfer from one item of clothing to another was possible, particularly if the body fluid was wet. In addition, defendant, through cross-examination of Luke and the testimony of other witnesses, presented evidence that would have allowed the jury to conclude that defendant’s ex-wife had coached Luke regarding the allegations. While the jury could have reasonably found this evidence self-serving and not entitled to much weight, the improperly admitted evidence of the composition book entry and the expert report essentially guaranteed that the jury would find def 57, 564 (1992) (<HOLDING>). In light of defendant’s evidence regarding
holding that although neither of the trial courts errors when considered in isolation were necessarily sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial the cumulative effect of the errors created sufficient prejudice to deny defendant a fair trial holding where court could not see how defendants prior assaults established motive to commit charged murder admission of prior assaults was abuse of discretion holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding that cumulative evidence of prior sexual assaults allegedly committed by defendant were prejudicial entitling defendant to new trial