exception and (2) it contains secondary hearsay. Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall within a designated exception. Minn. R. Evid. 802. The business-records exception permits admission of records containing hearsay if they are (1) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and (2) supported by proper foundation. Minn. R. Evid. 803(6). However, records prepared in anticipation of litigation are not admissible as business records. Id. But even if this letter was prepared in anticipation of litigation, appellant’s arguments fail for two reasons. First, any error was harmless because Dr. Gilíes testified at trial regarding her opinion and was subject to cross-examination. See Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enters., 396 N.W.2d 223, 228 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). Second, any error was harmless because the
holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that erroneous admission of hearsay medical notes was harmless error when doctor testified and was subject to crossexamination holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that admission of hearsay constituted harmless error when there was more than sufficient other evidence in the record to support the verdict holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless