Task: Text Completion
Input (English): doubt that Petitioner participated in both the Caldwell and Zales Robberies. Thus, the consolidation of the two robberies into one trial did not prejudice Petitioner with respect to either conviction. 37 . 12/6/95 N.T. at 56. 38 . Although the trial court's instruction removing the elements of the crime from the purview of the jury was incorrect, the error was harmless. The uncontested evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the robberies involved the theft of jewelry, and that the jewelry stores had received their inventories from out of state. As such, no reasonable juror could have found that the jewelry stolen was not personal property or that the robberies did not impact interstate commerce. See United States v. McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 553-55 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Neder, 527 U.S. at 15, 119 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that harmless error review applied when the trial court instructed the jury that the materiality element of counts for perjury and failure to disclose a material fact had been satisfied as a matter of law (B) holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established (C) holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis (D) recognizing that trial courts failure to instruct jury on element of offense is harmless when existence of element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence (E) holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendants motion in arrest of judgment when the indictment lacked a material element and it was not apparent that the grand jury based the indictment on facts that satisfy this element of the crime and that the only permissible cure was to send the matter back to the grand jury
Output (English): (A)