harmless error in Washington

2025However, “[i]f a court determines the claim raises a manifest constitutional error, it may still be subject to a harmless error analysis.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).

2024“If a court determines the claim raises a manifest constitutional error, it may still be subject to a harmless error analysis.” O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d at 98 .

2010It is an error "`affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself,'" "`necessarily render[ing] a trial fundamentally unfair.'" Neder, 527 U.S. at 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) and Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). ¶ 41 The United States Supreme Court has held that omitting an element from a jury instruction is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2010In Neder , the Court disapproved of the analysis in Sullivan , holding an absence of a complete verdict does not mean there is no object upon which to apply a harmless error analysis. 527 U.S. at 12 .

2026See Jones, 179 Wn.2d at 355-56 (failure to make proper Burnet findings is subject to a harmless error analysis).

2025See Jones, 179 Wn.2d at 355-56 (failure to make proper Burnet findings is subject to a harmless error analysis).

2002The dissent argues that we must apply the harmless error test followed in State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250 , 985 P.2d 289 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 837 (2000) and State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999).

2002See 139 Wn.2d at 274 (stating “[a] claim of unconstitutional shackling is subject to a harmless error analysis”); see also Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 859-66 (applying harmless error review in shackling case even though defendant lost motion for a new trial).

2024Paetsch v. Spokane Dermatology Clinic, P.S., 182 Wn.2d 842, 849 , 348 P.3d 389 (2015). “‘A harmless error is an error which is trivial, . . . formal, . . . merely academic, . . . was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and in no way affected the final outcome of the case.’” State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 237 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977) (italics in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Golladay, 78 Wn.2d 121, 139 , 470 P.2d 191 (1970)). 12 58389-5-II Here, jury instruction 9 misstated the law by applying the traveling employee doctrine to occu

2024Paetsch v. Spokane Dermatology Clinic, P.S., 182 Wn.2d 842, 849 , 348 P.3d 389 (2015). “‘A harmless error is an error which is trivial, . . . formal, . . . merely academic, . . . was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and in no way affected the final outcome of the case.’” State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 237 , 559 P.2d 548 (1977) (italics in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Golladay, 78 Wn.2d 121, 139 , 470 P.2d 191 (1970)). 12 58389-5-II Here, jury instruction 9 misstated the law by applying the traveling employee doctrine to occu

2019Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (where trial court erroneously excluded impeachment evidence in violation of confrontation clause protections, factors relevant to the harmless error analysis "include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case"); Lui, 179 Wash.2d at 496 -97 , 315 P.3d 493 (e

2019Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (where trial court erroneously excluded impeachment evidence in violation of confrontation clause protections, factors relevant to the harmless error analysis "include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case"); Lui, 179 Wash.2d at 496 -97 , 315 P.3d 493 (e

2016Further, a manifest constitutional error is subject to a harmless error analysis.32 We employ the "overwhelming untainted evidence test" to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.33 Under that test, we examine whether the untainted evidence is so overwhelming that it leads necessarily to a finding of guilt.34 We presume that constitutional errors are prejudicial, and the State 27 Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d at 595 . 28159 Wn.2d 918 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). 29 163 Wn.2d 577 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008). 30 Kirkman. 159 Wn.2d at 937 ; Montgomery. 163 Wn.2d at 595-96 . 31 Montgomery. 163

2016Further, a manifest constitutional error is subject to a harmless error analysis.32 We employ the "overwhelming untainted evidence test" to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.33 Under that test, we examine whether the untainted evidence is so overwhelming that it leads necessarily to a finding of guilt.34 We presume that constitutional errors are prejudicial, and the State 27 Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d at 595 . 28159 Wn.2d 918 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). 29 163 Wn.2d 577 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008). 30 Kirkman. 159 Wn.2d at 937 ; Montgomery. 163 Wn.2d at 595-96 . 31 Montgomery. 163

2019It was, instead, examining “whether Washington law requires a harmless error analysis where a sentencing factor, such as imposition of a firearm enhancement based on a deadly weapon finding, was not submitted to the jury.” 163 Wn.2d at 431 .

2012In Recuenco III, four justices not only reasonably believed the majority’s harmless error rule was not compelled by existing precedent but, to the contrary, believed that existing precedent compelled the opposite result. 163 Wn.2d at 443-47 (Fairhurst, J., dissenting).

2025State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 200 , 59 P.3d 632 (2002).

2006“Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test.” State v. Robinson 153 Wn.2d 689, 697 , 107 P.3d 90 (2005) (citing State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 220 , 59 P.3d 632 (2002)).

2026“Confrontation clause errors are subject to a harmless-error analysis as laid out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2026“Confrontation clause errors are subject to a harmless-error analysis as laid out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2019We conclude that a harmless error analysis is inapplicable because, under Williams-Walker , such an error can never be harmless. ¶25 The State relies on State v. Brown , 147 Wash.2d 330 , 339, 341, 58 P.3d 889 (2002), to support its harmless error argument; however, that case is distinguishable because Brown involved a missing element from the "to-convict" instruction and did not involve a sentence that was unsupported by the jury's verdict. ¶26 Because the court sentenced Butterfield in excess of its authority and in violation of Butterfield's constitutional rights, we reverse his exceptional

2017Under the harmless error analysis, we determine “‘whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Banks, 149 Wn.2d at 44 (quoting State v. Brown, 147 Wn.2d 330, 341 , 58 P.3d 889 (2002)).

2008Furthermore, "[o]nce the claim is found to be constitutional, the court examines the effect of the error on the defendant's trial under a harmless error standard." O'Donnell, 142 Wash.App. at 322 , 174 P.3d 1205 (citing State v. Scott, 110 Wash.2d 682, 688 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)).

2008Furthermore, "[o]nce the claim is found to be constitutional, the court examines the effect of the error on the defendant's trial under a harmless error standard." O'Donnell, 142 Wash.App. at 322 , 174 P.3d 1205 (citing State v. Scott, 110 Wash.2d 682, 688 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)).

2021Under the harmless error standard, the State must show “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Jasper, 174 Wn.2d at 5 No. 81347-1-I/6 117 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2019See State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96, 117 , 271 P.3d 876 (2012) (confrontation clause violations are subject to a harmless error analysis).

2020In re Det. of Post, 170 Wn.2d 302,314 , 241 P.3d 1234 (2010); State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 871 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004); State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611 , 30 P.3d 1255 (2001); State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403 , 945 P.2d 1120 (1997); State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986).

2015Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d at 403 .

2020In re Det. of Post, 170 Wn.2d 302,314 , 241 P.3d 1234 (2010); State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 871 , 83 P.3d 970 (2004); State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611 , 30 P.3d 1255 (2001); State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403 , 945 P.2d 1120 (1997); State v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 725 P.2d 951 (1986).

2015Error will be harmless “if the evidence is of minor significance in reference to the overall, overwhelming evidence as a whole.” State v. Bourgeois, 133 Wn.2d 389, 403 , 945 P.2d 1120 (1997).

2025See State v. Banks, 149 Wn.2d 38, 43-44 , 65 P.3d 1198 (2003) (addressing CrR 6.1(d), which similar to JuCR 7.11(d) requires written findings and conclusions following a bench trial).

2017Under the harmless error analysis, we determine “‘whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Banks, 149 Wn.2d at 44 (quoting State v. Brown, 147 Wn.2d 330, 341 , 58 P.3d 889 (2002)).

2013"Structural error is a special category of constitutional error that 'affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.'"56 If a structural error occurs in a criminal trial, the trial '"cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination ofguilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'"57 A structural error "resists" a harmless error analysis because "it taints the entire proceeding."58 56 State v. Wise. 176 Wn.2d 1, 13-14 , 288 P.3d 1113 (2012) (alternation in nriginah (quotin

2013"Structural error is a special category of constitutional error that 'affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.'"56 If a structural error occurs in a criminal trial, the trial '"cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination ofguilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'"57 A structural error "resists" a harmless error analysis because "it taints the entire proceeding."58 56 State v. Wise. 176 Wn.2d 1, 13-14 , 288 P.3d 1113 (2012) (alternation in nriginah (quotin

2013State v. Lynn. 67 Wn.

2013See Lynn. 67 Wn.

2012See Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 218-22 . ¶9 In 2008, on remand, we clarified that the error in Recuenco occurred when the trial court imposed a firearm enhancement that simply was not legally authorized by the otherwise appropriate charges and jury findings, and we held that this sort of structural error is not subject to the harmless error doctrine.

2011State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 425 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985). ¶ 41 The majority relies on State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd and remanded by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), aff'd, 163 Wash.2d 428 , 180 P.3d 1276 (2008), State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wash.2d 889 , 225 P.3d 913 (2010), and Bashaw, 169 Wash.2d 133 , 234 P.3d 195 , to hold that this court cannot apply a harmless error analysis to the type of error alleged.

2026“If a court determines the claim raises a manifest constitutional error, it may still be subject to a harmless error analysis.” Id.

2025However, “[i]f a court determines the claim raises a manifest constitutional error, it may still be subject to a harmless error analysis.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009).

2025The facts of this case show why a harmless error analysis should be available, albeit used infrequently.” Id.

2025The facts of this case show why a harmless error analysis should be available, albeit used infrequently.” Id.

2025See State v. Banks, 149 Wn.2d 38, 43-44 , 65 P.3d 1198 (2003) (addressing CrR 6.1(d), which similar to JuCR 7.11(d) requires written findings and conclusions following a bench trial).

2021State v. Banks, 149 Wn.2d 38, 43 , 65 P.3d 1198 (2003).