by the jury.’ ” Burton-Lister, 798 A.2d at 239 (quoting Majdic ssue appropriate limiting instructions to ensure that the inadmissible hearsay does not come in for. substantive purposes and that the treatise does not become the focus of cross. Aldridge, 750 A.2d at 297 (citing Pa.R.E. 105 (“When evidence - which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court upon request shall, or on its own initiative may, restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.”)). It remains to be determined, however, “whether the [appellants are entitled to a new trial, as an erroneous evidentiary rul ing will generally require reversal only if it caused prejudice.” Aldridge, 750 A.2d at 298 (<HOLDING>). A trial court’s failure to limit the use of
holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding erroneous exclusion of hearsay did not deny defendant a substantial right holdingthat erroneous admission of hearsay did not prejudiceresults of trial so as to require reversal holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony holding that even when the trial court commits error in allowing the admission of hearsay statements one must show that such error was prejudicial in order to warrant reversal