Opinion ID: 2590220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the errors are subject to harmless error analysis

Text: An error is subject to harmless error analysis, unless the error is so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal ( i.e. `affect substantial rights') without regard to [its] effect on the outcome. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). Certain errors defy harmless error analysis because they `infect the entire trial process' and `necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair.' Id. at 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) and Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). Otherwise, most constitutional errors are presumed to be subject to harmless error analysis. Id. (citations omitted). The error in Neder, an omission of an element from the jury instructions, was subject to harmless error analysis because the defendant was tried before an impartial judge, under the correct standard of proof and with the assistance of counsel .... Id. at 9, 119 S.Ct. 1827. Recently, we adopted the United States Supreme Court's position that a jury instruction that omits or misstates an element of a charged crime is subject to harmless error analysis to determine whether the error has not relieved the State of its burden to prove each element of the case. State v. Brown, 147 Wash.2d 330, 344, 58 P.3d 889 (2002) (relying on Neder. ) The errors in this case neither infected the whole trial process nor rendered Banks' trial fundamentally unfair. Banks, like the defendant in Neder, was tried before an impartial judge who was required to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He had assistance of counsel. Under the reasoning in Neder and Brown, the errors are subject to harmless error analysis.