Accord Cane v. State , 285 Ga. 19, 20–21 (2) (a), 673 S.E.2d 218 (2009) (any error in admission of defendant's statements made during videotaped interview with police was harmless, given that defendant made the same statements to another witness whose testimony was properly admitted at trial). See generally Hill v. State , 306 Ga. App. 663, 665 (1), 703 S.E.2d 98 (2010) ("Evidence which is cumulative of other legally admissible evidence of the same fact, renders harmless admission of incompetent evidence.") (citation and punctuation omitted). Lastly, we note that even if evidence of a defendant's pre-arrest silence constitutes an adoptive admission, the evidence still may be subject to exclusion under the balancing test set forth in OCGA § 24-4-403 ("Rule 403").

See Fetty v. State, 268 Ga. 365, 367(3), 489 S.E.2d 813 (1997); Malone v. State, 246 Ga.App. 882, 883, 541 S.E.2d 431 (2000); Bishop v. State, 241 Ga.App. 517, 519(1), 526 S.E.2d 917 (1999) (acknowledging that “OCGA § 16–11–66 provides two specific exceptions [to OCGA § 16–11–62] which allow such interception,” the first exception being that a person who is a party to the communication may intercept it); OCGA § 16–11–66(a).Smith, supra.; see Hill v. State, 306 Ga.App. 663, 665(1), 703 S.E.2d 98 (2010); Bishop, supra.Hill, supra.

OCGA § 16-11-66 (a) (emphasis supplied). Cf. Hill v. State, 306 Ga. App. 663, 665 (1) ( 703 S.E.2d 98) (2010) ("While OCGA § 16-11-62 (1) prohibits any person from clandestinely recording the private conversation of another, OCGA § 16-11-66 (a) excludes from this prohibition situations in which one party to the conversation has consented to the recording of it." (citations omitted)); Fetty v. State, 268 Ga. 365, 366 (3) ( 489 S.E.2d 813) (1997) ("OCGA § 16-11-62 [(1)] prohibits the clandestine intentional recording of another's private phone conversations.").