argument that any error in California

2022(Ibid., quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 .) We consequently cannot conclude that the erroneous admission of Flores’s statements to law enforcement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2022For all of the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the People’s argument that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Flores’s statements to law enforcement were not “actually inculpatory” and “there was overwhelming evidence of [Flores’s] guilt.” “[W]e cannot say that the confessions were ‘unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.’” (People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 87 .) “Nor can we say that the ‘verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable’ to the” statements.

2021In Justice P., the court considered the father’s claim that the lack of notice violated due process, applying “the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of prejudice.” (Justice P., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 193 .) The County argues Father’s involvement would have been detrimental to Minor “because it would delay permanency with no likelihood of success,” relying on the facts that Father was incarcerated during the dependency period and that he did not participate in any services.

2021Error in refusing to give a pinpoint instruction requires reversal “only if ‘it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.’ ” (People v. Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 349 .) Defendant was permitted to argue that collision with Junior’s vehicle was not intentional but an accident.

2016Finally, we reject the People’s argument that any error in Gabor’s case was harmless whether examined under either the ordinary instructional error standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , or the heightened constitutional standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 .

2016(People v. Hill (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1118 .) We reject the people's argument that any error in permitting Detective Frey to testify about CSAAS is harmless in view of Dr. Thomas's more extensive testimony on the subject.

2016Finally, we reject the People’s argument that any error in Gabor’s case was harmless whether examined under either the ordinary instructional error standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , or the heightened constitutional standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 .

2015(See In re A.M., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 928 ; In re Angel W., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) Indeed, despite his acknowledgment that we review the juvenile court’s denials for “prejudicial abuse of discretion” and the Department’s argument that any error by the court was harmless, Steven B. does not even argue that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the court’s denials of his requests to represent himself.

2015(See In re A.M., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 928 ; In re Angel W., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) Indeed, despite his acknowledgment that we review the juvenile court’s denials for “prejudicial abuse of discretion” and the Department’s argument that any error by the court was harmless, Steven B. does not even argue that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the court’s denials of his requests to represent himself.

2015(See In re A.M., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 928 ; In re Angel W., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) Indeed, despite his acknowledgment that we review the juvenile court’s denials for “prejudicial abuse of discretion” and the Department’s argument that any error by the court was harmless, Steven B. does not even argue that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the court’s denials of his requests to represent himself.

2013(Mileikowsky, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1272 .) We observed that “although a hospital’s administrative governing body makes the ultimate decision about whether to grant or deny staff privileges, it does so based on the recommendation of its medical staff committee [citation], giving ‘great weight to the actions of peer review bodies ...’(§ 809.05, subd. (a)).” (Ibid.) The board’s action could not “cure” the hearing officer’s error because in “simply affirming] the hearing officer’s order on its finding that Dr. Mileikowsky’s prehearing conduct justified termination of the proceedings,” it gave “