Opinion ID: 2570343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count I and Harmless Error

Text: [¶ 7] As noted earlier in the opinion, we have held that constitutional errors, such as those at issue here, may be analyzed to determine if, despite the presumption that such errors are prejudicial, the reviewing court is able to declare its belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Vigil, ¶ 19. In this instance, Sarr's conviction on Count I rested on two sources of evidence. Daniel Bryan recited his eyewitness account of what occurred. The second source was the victim's tape-recorded statements, which we have now held to be inadmissible. The latter testimony was, of course, the most compelling evidence of Sarr's guilt with respect to that count. As was the case in Vigil, given the circumstances of this case, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the hearsay statements did not contribute to the conviction[.] Vigil, ¶ 25. Thus, we are compelled to reverse Sarr's conviction on Count I, and it is remanded to the district court for retrial.