constitutional harmless error in California

1970On January 22, 1969, it issued an order transferring the case to this court “with directions to recall its remittitur as to appellant Fortman, vacate its judgment as to him, and determine his appeal in light of Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 ; Bruton v. United States, *497 391 U.S. 123 ; Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 ; and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 .” Remittitur was recalled.

1969On January 15, 1969, the State Supreme Court, treating appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a proceeding to recall the remittitur, directed this court to recall the remittitur, vacate the judgment and determine the appeal in the light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 ], and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ], Our prior opinion fully sets forth the facts and our reasons for rejecting the claims o

1970On January 22, 1969, it issued an order transferring the case to this court “with directions to recall its remittitur as to appellant Fortman, vacate its judgment as to him, and determine his appeal in light of Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 ; Bruton v. United States, *497 391 U.S. 123 ; Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 ; and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 .” Remittitur was recalled.

1969On January 15, 1969, the State Supreme Court, treating appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a proceeding to recall the remittitur, directed this court to recall the remittitur, vacate the judgment and determine the appeal in the light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 ], and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ], Our prior opinion fully sets forth the facts and our reasons for rejecting the claims o

1970On January 22, 1969, it issued an order transferring the case to this court “with directions to recall its remittitur as to appellant Fortman, vacate its judgment as to him, and determine his appeal in light of Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 ; Bruton v. United States, *497 391 U.S. 123 ; Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 ; and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 .” Remittitur was recalled.

1969On January 15, 1969, the State Supreme Court, treating appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a proceeding to recall the remittitur, directed this court to recall the remittitur, vacate the judgment and determine the appeal in the light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 ], and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ], Our prior opinion fully sets forth the facts and our reasons for rejecting the claims o

2017This error, *1113 we explained, "is not a fundamental structural defect in the mechanism of the criminal proceeding [citation] which cannot or should not be evaluated for prejudice by reference to 'the entire cause, including the evidence.' " ( Id . at p. 176, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 .) Instead, "it is a mere trial error, one committed in the presentation of the case to the jury," and its "probable adverse effect ... in a particular case can readily be assessed by an individualized, concrete examination of the record in that case." ( Ibid . ) Although our prior decision **1084 annou

2017This error, *1113 we explained, "is not a fundamental structural defect in the mechanism of the criminal proceeding [citation] which cannot or should not be evaluated for prejudice by reference to 'the entire cause, including the evidence.' " ( Id . at p. 176, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 .) Instead, "it is a mere trial error, one committed in the presentation of the case to the jury," and its "probable adverse effect ... in a particular case can readily be assessed by an individualized, concrete examination of the record in that case." ( Ibid . ) Although our prior decision **1084 annou

2017Because article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution explicitly identifies "any error as to any matter of procedure" ( ibid . ) as error that warrants reversal only if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result, here, as in Soule and Cahill , its "express terms ... weigh against automatic reversal" ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 579 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ) for a court's procedural error in failing to issue a statement of decision.

2017Because article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution explicitly identifies "any error as to any matter of procedure" ( ibid . ) as error that warrants reversal only if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result, here, as in Soule and Cahill , its "express terms ... weigh against automatic reversal" ( Soule , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 579 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ) for a court's procedural error in failing to issue a statement of decision.

2014The constitutional harmless error standard is “ ‘not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” (People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 621 , quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189 ].) Defendant admitted that he was carrying a gun on the night of the shooting, even though he knew there was a warrant for his arrest and he could not legally possess a gun.

2014(Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 410 U.S. 284 .) Thus he argues we should apply the standard for constitutional harmless error under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S.18, 24.

2014(Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 410 U.S. 284 .) Thus he argues we should apply the standard for constitutional harmless error under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S.18, 24.

1970On January 22, 1969, it issued an order transferring the case to this court “with directions to recall its remittitur as to appellant Fortman, vacate its judgment as to him, and determine his appeal in light of Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 ; Bruton v. United States, *497 391 U.S. 123 ; Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 ; and the constitutional harmless error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 .” Remittitur was recalled.