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
JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I agree in the dissent of Judge Chapel herein, but in so doing I need to clarify my *102 position as to the dissent. I also agree with Judge Chapel that a harmless error analysis may be applied to the videotape that was admitted pursuant to 22 O.S. § 752. I was the author of the opinion as it relates to such statute. Burke v. State, 820 P.2d 1344 (Okl.Cr.1991), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2940 , 119 L.Ed.2d 565 (1992).
When the harmless error analysis is attached to this case, one cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence of the video tape, since there was little other evidence, did not lead to the finding of the jury and contribute to their verdict.