The opinion
Judge Becton
concurring in the result.
Believing that defendant had a trial free of prejudicial error, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write this concurring opinion only because I believe it was error to allow Detective Ray Strickland “to testify, over objection, that after talking to shop owners where defendant allegedly sold the stolen property, he determined that the shop owners’ descriptions of the seller fit the defendant,” ante p. 9. This testimony, in my view, is inadmissible hearsay. Further, because the out-of-court statements of the shop owners form the basis for Strickland’s conclusion and opinion — that “the shop owners’ descriptions of the seller fit the defendant” —the conclusion and opinion are inadmissible. Additionally, any examination of Strickland concerning the specifics of the descriptions given creates a confrontation problem. However, *580 given the evidence against the defendant, I do not believe that the admission of the challenged evidence in any way contributed to defendant’s conviction. The error was harmless.