What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant of false imprisonment based on hearsay evidence?

'Since the hearsay statements were identical with the courtroom testimony, the jury could not have logically believed the former and disbelieved the latter. In short, the only value of the prior statements lay in the mere repetition of what had been said on direct examination. There was thus no "reasonable possibility" (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. (18) at p. 23, (87 S.Ct. 824 at p. 827), 17 L.Ed.2d (705) at p. 710) that the constitutional error contributed to defendant's conviction.'