Confrontation Clause violation; The corpus delicti rule; Harmless error

The court held that the Confrontation Clause violation in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was convicted of use of body armor by a violent felon. In a prior appeal, the court vacated his conviction and remanded for a new trial after finding that “testimony was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, that the corpus delicti rule barred inculpatory statements made by defendant, and that the Confrontation Clause error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, the Supreme Court found that the corpus delicti rule did not apply to defendant’s admissions that he possessed the bulletproof vest. As such, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the court to reconsider whether the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. On remand, the court found the violation was, in fact, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “The stipulation that defendant had been convicted of a violent felony established that particular element of the offense, and the two statements in which defendant admitted that he had been wearing the body armor or bulletproof vest at the time of arrest constituted strong evidence of the element of possession or use.” In addition, “in defendant’s own testimony, he could not recall or remember whether he was in possession of or wearing the bulletproof vest when arrested; there was no outright denial. On examination of the entire record,” it was “clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the offending testimony.” Affirmed.