Opinion ID: 1825664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 4. Bynum asserts we should consider his appeal in the light of Crawford, in which the United States Supreme Court held that out-of-court statements by witnesses that are testimonial are barred, under the Confrontation Clause, unless witnesses are unavailable and defendants had prior opportunity to cross-examine, regardless of whether the court deems such statements reliable. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54, 124 S.Ct. at 1354. The Court of Appeals, noting Crawford was decided some seven months after Bynum's conviction, opined that this Court has not spoken on the retroactivity of Crawford. . . . Bynum, 2005 WL 894796, at , 929 So.2d at 333. We grant certiorari in this case to correct this statement regarding our prior application of Crawford. ¶ 5. In Clark v. State, 891 So.2d 136, 138-39 (Miss.2004), the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine an alleged accomplice, who refused to testify at trial. Relying on Crawford, we held the trial court erred in admitting the accomplice's testimonial statement. Id. at 140. However, after considering the overwhelming weight of admissible evidence, we found the Confrontation Clause violation to be harmless error. Id. at 142. While we did not specifically proclaim in Clark that Crawford is to be applied retroactively, we clearly relied on Crawford and applied its holding retroactively. ¶ 6. Accordingly, because Bynum lacked the opportunity to cross-examine his co-defendant, we find the trial court erred in allowing the police officer to testify concerning the co-defendant's statement. However, upon careful review of the evidence, we find the erroneous admission of the statement was harmless error. Harmless errors are those which in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). We find the impact of the erroneously admitted statement was so insignificant that it could not have contributed in any meaningful way to the guilty verdict. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (the impact of the erroneously admitted evidence should be weighed to determine what errors are harmless). The overwhelming evidence of guilt includes the victim's and two eyewitnesses' identification of Bynum, testimony that Bynum threw the victim's property out of the car window, and the presence of the victim's change purse in the get-away car. Considering the evidence, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court's error in admitting the co-defendant's statement was harmless.