typed Lindsey’s written statement, but the notes were never utilized to refresh his memory. Lieutenant Crearfter recalled the details of the second interview with ease, had no trouble remembering the event, and testified to what he observed during the interview. Lieutenant Creamer gave direct testimony about Lindsey’s second interview, and the State never established the proper foundation to admit the exhibit under the exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, the trial court violated Rule 803(5), SCRE, by allowing Creamer’s notes to be read into evidence and received as an exhibit to prove he robbed the liquor store. Although the testimony was improperly admitted, Lindsey has not demonstrated reversible error. See State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carmack, 388 S.C. 190, 202, 694
holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial holding that admission of evidence of defendants gross receipts was reversible error holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that admission of hearsay constituted harmless error when there was more than sufficient other evidence in the record to support the verdict