What is the legal test for reversal of a conviction where a confession was obtained by means that render the confession inadmissible under the federal Constitution?

"[W]henever a confession admitted in a California trial has been obtained by means that render the confession inadmissible under the federal Constitution, the prejudicial effect of the confession must be determined under the federal standard" of harmless error from Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [17 L.Ed.2d 705]. (People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 510.) Under the Chapman standard, "the judgment must be reversed unless the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict in the case at hand." (People v. Lewis (2006) 139

Page 5

Cal.App.4th 874, 884.) "The test is not whether a hypothetical jury, no matter how reasonable or rational, would render the same verdict in the absence of the error, but whether there is any reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction in this case. If such a possibility exists, reversal is required." (Id. at p. 887.) "[T]he focus is what the jury actually decided and whether the error might have tainted its decision. That is to say, the issue is 'whether the . . . verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.' " (People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 86.)