Court Opinion

ID: 9760259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:44:58.364819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.891102
License: Public Domain

*665DONNELLY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I doubt that the testimony complained of was hearsay. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1789 (Chadbourn Rev. 1976); McCormick, McCormick on Evidence, § 249 (2d Ed. 1972).
However, in any event, I have come to believe that the “harmless error rule” articulated in State v. Degraffenreid, 477 S.W.2d 57, 64 (Mo. banc 1972) is flawed, and should no longer be followed.
In 1903, Division No. 2 of this Court said:
“Error is presumptively harmful, and it devolves upon the party who commits it to show that it could not possibly have resulted in injury. Especially is this true where the life or liberty of the citizen is at stake. * * State v. Shipley, 174 Mo. 512, 516, 74 S.W. 612, 613 (1903).
In my view, this presumption may be overcome only if we are “able to declare a belief that * * * the error * * * was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
I respectfully dissent.