California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Smith, D064347 (Cal. App. 2014):
"Violation of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation right requires reversal of the judgment against a criminal defendant unless the prosecution can show 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the error was harmless." (People v. Rutterschmidt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650, 661; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman).) " 'The beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman "requir[es] the beneficiary of a [federal] constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." [Citation.] "To say that an error did not contribute to the ensuing verdict is . . . to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record." [Citation.] Thus, the focus is on what the jury actually decided and whether the error might have tainted its decision. That is to say, the issue is "whether the . . . verdict
Page 25
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.