said he did ‘not admit [the challenged statement], and [would] not consider it relevant to ... issues” other than to establish a recent complaint of rape (emphasis added)). Further, and contrary to the position taken by the majority in footnote 4, I do not believe the trial court’s partial articulation of the reason for its decision in this case sufficiently rebutted the Cole/Craddock presumption that the court improperly considered the admitted evidence of Pierce’s perjury conviction in determining her guilt. The trial court commented that, before defense witness Kisha LeBray testified, this was a “close” case on the issue of possession with intent to distribute. Its statement that “the testimony of Miss LeBray makes it pretty clear that this defendant was at least a c d.2d at 826 (<HOLDING>). Here and in Craddock, unlike in Cole, the
holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is insignificant by comparison holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt