search. ¶ 17 Furthermore, even if the trial court erred by admitting the results of the mattress search, the error was harmless. An error is harmless if the court is “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence did not impact the verdict.” State v. Romanosky, 162 Ariz. 217, 223, 782 P.2d 693, 699 (1989). Given the overwhelming weight of the evidence against Appellant, including the physical evidence of his guilt and the facts that Appellant and Ms. Coughlin were the only people in Room 204 and the door was locked from the inside, the jury would have found that Appellant committed the murder beyond a reasonable doubt even if the eyeglasses and pornographic magazine had not been admitted into evidence. See State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 245, 778 P.2d 602, 610 (1988) (<HOLDING>). C. ¶ 18 Appellant contends that the trial
holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding admission of challenged evidence is harmless error where the record contains other properly admitted evidence that independently establishes guilt holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt holding the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession is subject to a harmless error analysis when the defendants guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt