tell the [j]udge what he had done when he assaulted you approximately [five years] before this happened? A. He had thrown me up against, as I remember, the pantry door, and strangled me, started choking me. He stopped because his sister and mother[,] crying[,] pulled him off. Q. What had provoked that attack? A. I ... said, [G] * * d * * *. Q. And when you said that, what did he do? A. He snapped. (emphases added). Therefore, the fact that Smith had a history of violent behavior was well-established — without objection from the State — prior to the admission of Sergeant Drake’s and Officer Stair’s testimony. Any error in admitting details of the 2007 and 2010 incidents beyond what Respondent already knew was harmless. See State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455, 463, 469 S.E.2d 49, 54 (1996) (<HOLDING>). III. Assessment of Intoxication Evidence The
holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless