distinguishing between "trial errors" that occur during the presentation of the case, which are subject to harmless error analysis, and "structural defects" that impact the entire conduct of the trial and thus defy analysis by harmless error standards
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing between "trial errors" that occur during the presentation of the case, which are subject to harmless error analysis, and "structural defects" that impact the entire conduct of the trial and thus defy analysis by harmless error standards
- distinguishing between “trial errors” that occur during the presentation of the ease, which are subject to harmless error analysis, and “structural defects” that impact the entire conduct of the trial and thus defy analysis by harmless error standards
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge,
specially concurring:
I do not disagree with the majority when it subjects the error in admitting the tape to a harmless error analysis. However, I do not think it necessary.
In my dissent to Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991) I expressed my view that 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 752 did not violate the Confrontation Clause of either the state or federal constitutions, and that subject to the limitations of the evidence code, the videotaped statement of a child victim may be admissible. I find nothing in the tape or its use that would make it inadmissible under the evidence code, and therefore I vote to affirm the conviction without using the “harmless error” analysis.