if: The declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (b) consistent with the declar-ant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person. Id. at 653-654. However, since Modesitt, both this court and our supreme court have held that, in some fact situations, the erroneous admission of evidence in violation of Modesitt is harmless. See Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207, 211-212 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>); McGrew v. State, 673 N.E.2d 787, 796
holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that causal nexus did not exist where there was no evidence that the disclosure had an impact on the testimony of witnesses holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony of two witnesses that confirmed but did not elaborate upon the victims testimony would have had only minor impact on the jury because there was little to undermine the victims credibility holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime