testified Lindsey confessed to the armed robbery and subsequently provided a written statement. In addition, Lindsey’s written statement providing specific details about the armed robbery and the weapon used to assault the liquor store clerk is virtually identical to Creamer’s notes taken contemporaneously with Lindsey’s admission. Moreover, Lieutenant Creamer’s own testimony recounting the details of the second interview and stating he witnessed Lindsey sign the written statement is sufficient notwithstanding his notes being admitted into evidence. Despite the improper admission of Creamer’s notes, the verdict was based on an abundance of competent evidence from which Lindsey’s guilt was properly established. See State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 171-72, 682 S.E.2d 19, 33 (Ct.App.2009) (<HOLDING>); State v. Blackburn, 271 S.C. 324, 329, 247
holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial holding that any error that court may have made in admitting inadmissible evidence was harmless because government presented overwhelming evidence establishing defendants guilt holding any error in admitting eye witness testimony was harmless because it was cumulative to other overwhelming evidence that established defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt