Goldhagen objected to admission of evidence of his refusal to answer the officers' questions, on relevance grounds. However, the prosecutor never explained why the evidence was relevant, and neither did the circuit court. The record reveals no explanation of how evidence of Goldhagen's refusal to answer questions after being given Miranda warnings would make any fact of consequence more or less probable, and we can see none. Therefore, we conclude that admission of the testimony was error. However, our analysis does not end there.
Evidentiary errors are subject to a harmless error analysis.
Generally, an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. A reasonable possibility is one that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. See State v. Patricia A.M . The burden of proof is on the beneficiary of the error to establish that the error was not prejudicial. We conclude that the County has established that the error was not prejudicial.