not have described his encounter with K.K., regardless of whether the nurse testified about K.K.’s bloody nose. In other words, Torrence’s argument that the erroneous admission of the nurse’s testimony about K.K.’s nosebleed affected the testimony of other witnesses for the Commonwealth is illogical speculation. We affirm, finding any error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. III. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. All sitting. All concur. 1 . Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). 2 . Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.24 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’’). 3 . Anderson v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Ky.2007) (<HOLDING>). 4 . See, e.g., Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 744
holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction