We have already concluded that the communication at issue here did not prejudice Hoover. 2 B. Constitutional Right to be Present. Hoover separately asserts that his constitutional right to be present at trial was violated when the bailiff, ex parte , dismissed the jury for the weekend. As noted above, we are not persuaded that the bailiff's contact with the jury outside of Hoover's presence constituted prejudicial error. Rather, as set forth, the communication, which was court-directed, administrative in nature, and did not involve the substance of the case, did not prejudice Hoover.
Constitutional errors are generally subject to the harmless error analysis.
The error alleged here is not the type of fundamental error that warrants an automatic reversal. C. Structural Error. Hoover cites several foreign cases in support of this contention. See, e.g., Guam v. Because each of these cases is factually distinguishable from Hoover's case, they are not persuasive.