rule, failure to object at trial results in waiver of an issue for purposes of appeal.” Washington v. State, 840 N.E.2d 873, 886 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied. Thus, Sur-ber’s argument is waived. Waiver notwithstanding, we conclude that any error was harmless. Surber argues his case is like Stone v. State, 536 N.E.2d 534, 541 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied, in which we reversed a conviction for child molesting because the State used multiple witnesses to produce a “drum beat repetition” of the child victim’s story. In Stone, the State had four adult witnesses testify to out-of-court statements made by the child, and at least one of the adults testified before the child took the stand. 536 N.E.2d at 537. The child’s story was repeated a total of seven times during the tr p.1996) (<HOLDING>), summarily affirmed by 682 N.E.2d 1289, 1292
holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive 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 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 lead detectives testimony that it is not unusual for victims or witnesses of crimes to be reluctant to cooperate with police did not improperly vouch for the truthfulness of victims testimony 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