cross-examination, to read into evidence the dates contained on the mental health receipt found at the crime scene. The trial court’s refusal was based on the fact that the document had been neither identified nor offered in evidence. Defendant contends the information contained in the receipt was relevant to show defendant’s “diminished capacity and defendant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting,” because it showed that defendant had recently been to the Mental Health Department for an appointment. Any error in the trial court’s ruling was cured when the State subsequently offered the receipt into evidence and defendant was able to elicit information through the testimony of another evidence technician, Jane Poston. See State v. Willis, 332 N.C. 161, 420 S.E.2d 158 (1992) (<HOLDING>). II. Next, defendant contends that comments
holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding any error in admission of evidence cured when same evidence later admitted without objection holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered