How has the Court of Appeal in Ontario dealt with appellant's claim that he was prejudiced by the error-strewn trial court?

Finally, appellant contends the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors deprived him of a fair trial and mandate reversal. We have rejected appellant's individual claims of error and, in the alternative, concluded that appellant was not prejudiced even if there was error. Consequently, no cumulative prejudicial effect exists that would require reversal. (People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 316.)

The judgment is affirmed.

McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

Pollak, J.

Jenkins, J.

Notes:

^1. Appellant's challenge to the testimony is limited to a confrontation clause claim. In his reply brief, for the first time, appellant suggests that certain hearsay testimony should not have been admitted because it did not fall under the hearsay exception for spontaneous statements. (See Evid. Code, 240.) The hearsay argument is forfeited not only by the failure to object at trial but also by appellant's failure to raise the argument in his opening brief on appeal. (See People v. Becker (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1156.)