With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rule. If the opinions of the nontestifying experts were to be admitted, the experts should have appeared and testified. We hold that the examiner’s testimony regarding the opinions of the nontestifying experts was inadmissible hearsay. See generally Minn. R. Evid. 802 (stating that hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception). However, not every judicial error warrants reversal. An error is harmless “[i]f the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, * * State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996). Here, the examiner’s testimony regarding the opinions of the nontestifying experts was insignificant and cumulative compared to the weight of the other evidence of Bradford’s guilt offered at trial. See, e.g., State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 367 (Minn.1999) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the admission of the

A: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
B: holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
C: recognizing that no prejudice results where the evidence erroneously admitted was merely cumulative and an appellate court will not reverse for harmless error in the admission of evidence
D: holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative
D.