nonstructural constitutional error in Tennessee

2022Finally, a conviction may be affirmed, notwithstanding a nonstructural constitutional error, if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error “did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022Finally, a conviction may be affirmed, notwithstanding a nonstructural constitutional error, if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error “did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2018See State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 434 (Tenn. 2010) (stating that failure to instruct the jury as to a lesser-included offense is a nonstructural constitutional error).

2018See State v. Brown, 311 S.W.3d 422, 434 (Tenn. 2010) (stating that failure to instruct the jury as to a - 27 - lesser-included offense is a nonstructural constitutional error).

2021State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 648 (Tenn. 2005), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007).

2018State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632, 648 (Tenn. 2005), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007)).

2019Thus, “[a]s a non-structural constitutional error, the erroneous admission of this evidence is only harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that its admission did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Hutchison, 482 S.W.3d at 921 (citing State v. Ingram, 331 S.W.3d 746, 759 (Tenn. 2011); see State v. Sanders, 452 S.W.3d 300, 306 (Tenn. 2014) (“if the trial court commits a nonstructural constitutional error, the appellate court may still ‘affirm the conviction if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict’”)).

2016“As. a nonstructural constitutional error, the erroneous admission of this evidence is only harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that its admission did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id.; see State v. Sanders, 452 S.W.3d 300, 306 (Tenn.2014) (if the trial court commits a nonstructural constitutional error, the appellate court may still “affirm the conviction if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict”).

2018State v. Climer, 400 S.W.3d 537, 569 (Tenn. 2013); see also State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn. 2008) (discussing the three categories of error— structural constitutional error, non-structural constitutional error, and non-constitutional error—and explaining the differing standards appellate courts apply when evaluating each category of error).

2018State v. Climer , 400 S.W.3d 537 , 569 (Tenn. 2013) ; see also State v. Rodriguez , 254 S.W.3d 361 , 371 (Tenn. 2008) (discussing the three categories of error-structural constitutional error, non-structural constitutional error, and non-constitutional error-and explaining the differing standards appellate courts apply when evaluating each category of error).

2013The State may establish that a nonstructural constitutional error is harmless only when “it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d at 371 (quoting State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 190 (Tenn.2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008The test used to determine whether a nonstructural constitutional error is harmless is “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d at 190 (quoting Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. at 15 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ); see also State v. Riels, 216 S.W.3d 737, 747 (Tenn.2007); State v. Hams, 989 S.W.2d at 315 .

2008State v. Page, 184 S.W.3d 223, 230 (Tenn.2006). 17 .

2007In that decision, this Court observed that “[a]s a nonstructural constitutional error, the omission of a lesser-included offense instruction is subject to waiver for purposes of plenary appellate review when the issue is not timely raised and properly preserved.” Id.

2019Thus, “[a]s a non-structural constitutional error, the erroneous admission of this evidence is only harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that its admission did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Hutchison, 482 S.W.3d at 921 (citing State v. Ingram, 331 S.W.3d 746, 759 (Tenn. 2011); see State v. Sanders, 452 S.W.3d 300, 306 (Tenn. 2014) (“if the trial court commits a nonstructural constitutional error, the appellate court may still ‘affirm the conviction if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict’”)).

2018As such, the Appellant is “entitled to a new trial unless we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and on the basis of the entire record, that this error did not contribute to the jury’s verdicts.” State v. Bell, 512 S.W.3d 167, 192 (Tenn. 2015).

2008The test used to determine whether a nonstructural constitutional error is harmless is “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d at 190 (quoting Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. at 15 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ); see also State v. Riels, 216 S.W.3d 737, 747 (Tenn.2007); State v. Hams, 989 S.W.2d at 315 .