for reversal based on Harold’s contention that the daughter’s description of her mother as a loving person constituted an appeal to the jury’s passion and borders on prosecutorial misconduct. Because no such objection was made to this testimony, the claimed error was not preserved. Iowa R. Evid. 5.103(a)(1); State v. Martin, 704 N.W.2d 665, 669 (Iowa 2005). Moreover, the testimony was cumulative because other witnesses had already given similar testimony without objection. See Swartzendruber v. Lamb, 582 N.W.2d 171, 175-76 (Iowa 1998) (concluding inquiries and responses “were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a reversal of the judgment” because “[s]ev-eral responses were cumulative of other evidence received without objection”); State v. McCurry, 544 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Iowa 1996) (<HOLDING>). V. Disposition. During trial, Harold relied
holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding district court did not err in admitting reports that were merely cumulative of evidence already in the record