mother. Nonetheless, testimony that the victim admitted to her grandmother that she made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse differs starkly from an independent conclusion reached by a police investigator that the victim’s allegation was unsubstantiated. That is, Paladino’s report and testimony would not be cumulative because they would be based on her own observations, not on any statement that A.B. made to her grandmother or anyone else, and because Paladino alone would have testified as to the basis for her conclusion — that is, exculpatory evidence that Watson did not provide, that was not otherwise made known to the jury, and that was essential for the jury to determine whether A.B. was a credible witness. See, e.g., Stephens v. State, 98 Ark. App. 196, 254 S.W.3d 1 (2007) (<HOLDING>). C. Other Factors The other factors a trial
holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that eyewitness accounts and an officers observations established probable cause holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature