With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. We found that the child’s credibility “became increasingly unimpeachable as each adult added his or her personal eloquence, maturity, emotion, and professionalism to [the child’s] out-of-court statements,” so that the “presumption of innocence was overcome long before [Stone] got to the stand.” Id. at 540. Stone is distinguishable from this case. Here, C.S.’s statements were repeated by Douglas, Callen, and Renz, and the videotaped interview with Detective McClain was played. However, C.S. was the first witness to testify and was subject to cross examination. Moreover, Douglas, Callen, and Renz’s testimony was brief, consistent with, and did not elaborate upon C.S.’s testimony. We conclude that any error was harmless. See, e.g., Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207, 211-212 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>); McGrew v. State, 673 N.E.2d 787, 796

A: holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime
B: holding that causal nexus did not exist where there was no evidence that the disclosure had an impact on the testimony of witnesses
C: holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements
D: holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony of two witnesses that confirmed but did not elaborate upon the victims testimony would have had only minor impact on the jury because there was little to undermine the victims credibility
D.