like a couple?” Yes. (4) Did Michael say, “If it’s in black and white, then I said it?” Yes. Appellant’s App. p. 171 (emphasis in original). As Perry notes on appeal, the trial court referenced his first name — Tony—when it answered the third question, but the jury had referenced a State’s witnesses — Michael Chowning — when it asked “Did Michael reply, ‘Maybe like a couple?’ ” Appellant’s App. p. 170. Perry argues that “[t]he only meaning conveyed by this [error] to the jury is that Mr. Perry admitted that he fired shots” and that the “prejudice attaching to this misstatement is incalculable.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. While the State argues that the jury was not “misled or confused” by the trial court’s typographical error, appellee’s br. p. 15, it is impossible for us to p.1997) (<HOLDING>). And we acknowledge thát “ ‘an error in the
holding that inadmissible testimony did not rise to level of plain error because the overwhelming evidence against defendant leads us to conclude that the error committed did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached holding that a final jury instruction containing the cause number 241 instead of 214 was not reversible error because it would not have been reasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant had been charged with an additional conviction holding that although there was no evidence supporting an instruction on intervening cause instructing the jury on intervening cause amounted to harmless error because the instruction was not so far removed from the facts as to constitute reversible error holding it was reversible error to give the jury a permissive inference instruction on possession of a controlled substance holding that a supplemental instruction did not amount to reversible error when it merely clarified a point of law on which the jury had already been instructed