Opinion ID: 2599716
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court's error was harmless

Text: ¶ 34 This court has adopted the overwhelming untainted evidence test as the proper standard for harmless error analysis in Washington. State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 426, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 1208, 89 L.Ed.2d 321 (1986). Under the `overwhelming untainted evidence' test, the appellate court looks only at the untainted evidence to determine if the untainted evidence is so overwhelming that it necessarily leads to a finding of guilt. Id. A finding of harmless error requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same result in the absence of the error. Id. at 425, 705 P.2d 1182. ¶ 35 Here, the trial court's action did not taint the evidence before the jury in any way, as counsel's argument is not evidence. Thus, all the evidence of Frost's guilt, including his three taped confessions and his trial testimony, may be considered in determining whether the trial court's error was harmless. Given this evidence, we must conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have convicted Frost, even absent the trial court's limitation on counsel's argument. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d at 425, 705 P.2d 1182; see also State v. Berube, 150 Wash.2d 498, 509, 79 P.3d 1144 (2003) (upholding finding of harmless error as a result of erroneous accomplice liability instruction, in part, because the record clearly support[ed] a finding that the jury verdict of conviction would be the same absent the error). The fact the jury was properly instructed on the State's burden of proof in general, [6] as well as instructed on the specific burden of proof to establish accomplice liability, [7] supports the conclusion that the trial court's error was harmless.