Does the error in allocating the burden of proof in the case of Steeg v. R.S.C.O.R.O., result in a reversal on the facts of the case?

We cannot conclude, however, that the error in allocating the burden of proof requires reversal on the facts of this case. The propriety of the police seizure of the car and the gun is not a close question on which the mistaken allocation of the burden of proof could possibly have had an impact. And our determination regarding inevitable discovery and attenuation of the taint are legal judgment calls we make based on the undisputed facts in the record. The concept of a "burden of proof" has relevance to factual controversies but not to the questions of law which are the crux of the issue here. (See People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597, 174 Cal.Rptr. 867, 629 P.2d 961.) A result more favorable to Steeg in the absence of the error is not reasonably probable. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.) ²⁰