# State v. Guloy

> Washington Supreme Court · September 5, 1985 · 104 Wash. 2d 412

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528764

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Pompeyo Benito Guloy, Jr., Et Al, Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 5, 1985
- **Citations:** 104 Wash. 2d 412; 705 P.2d 1182
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brachtenbach
- **Judges:** Dore, Brachtenbach, Dolliver, Utter, Andersen, Callow, Durham, Pearson, Brach-Tenbach
- **Cited by:** 664 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528764

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the "'overwhelming untainted evidence' test" in which an appellate court "determine[s] if the untainted evidence is so overwhelming that it necessarily leads to a finding of guilt"
- stating that it is well established that a constitutional error may be so insignificant as to be harmless
- noting that a party may only assign error in the appellate court on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial

## Opinion text

Brachtenbach, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority's analysis, including its adoption of the "overwhelming untainted evidence" test to determine if constitutional error is harmless. However, in adopting this test, I carefully distinguish those situations in which constitutional error may never be harmless. There are some constitutional vio *432 lations which undermine the fundamental fairness of the judicial process to such an extent that they require automatic reversal. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 543-44 , 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 , 102 S. Ct. 1198 (1982) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Such errors include the admission of an involuntary confession, Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 , 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 , 98 S. Ct. 2408 (1978); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 567-68 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 975 , 78 S. Ct. 844 (1958) and the knowing use by the prosecutor of perjured testimony, Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 , 79 L. Ed. 791 , 55 S. Ct. 340 , 98 A.L.R. 406 (1935). Other constitutional errors potentially affect a trial in such a way that it is impossible for an appellate court to later evaluate the error to determine whether or not it was harmless. This type of error includes the failure to provide counsel for an indigent defendant, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 , 83 S. Ct. 792 , 93 A.L.R.2d 733 (1963); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 193 , 83 S. Ct. 1050 (1963); the failure to determine that a defendant is competent to stand trial, Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 387 , 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 , 86 S. Ct. 836 (1966); discrimination in the selection of a jury, Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 599 , 87 S. Ct. 643 (1967); and financial interest by a judge in the outcome of a trial, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 71 L. Ed. 749 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 50 A.L.R. 1243 (1927). An appellate court can only speculate as to how the trial or the fact finder's perception of the trial would have differed had such constitutional errors not occurred. However, the admission of inadmissible evidence is not among the constitutional errors which the court must always find to be prejudicial. The court is ordinarily in a position to judge the possible effect of admitting a particular piece of evidence within the context of all the evidence presented at trial. Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 , 128 n.7, 78 L. Ed. 2d 267 , 104 S. Ct. 453 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring).
Utter, Pearson, and Andersen, JJ., concur with Brach-TENBACH, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528764. Public record. Not legal advice.