(Iowa 1992); Newmire v. Maxwell, 161 N.W.2d 74, 80 (Iowa 1968). Therefore, we turn now to the objections made by the State- at the time Earl II sought to introduce the polygraph report. The State objected to the admission of Earl Ill’s statements as irrelevant and cumulative. The State continues to argue on appeal that the evidence the father sought to introduce through the polygraph report was already before the court. We agree. The sexual abuse perpetrated on Sarah by her brother was fully documented in the record and the statements made by Earl III to the polygraph examiner would have been cumulative. On this basis, we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to exclude the polygraph evidence. See Thompson v. City of Des Moines, 564 N.W.2d 839, 846 (Iowa 1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Harrington, 349 N.W.2d 758, 761-62
holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that the exclusion of marginally relevant evidence was within the courts discretion holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative