¶1dissenting.
¶2I agree that the Court of Appeals’ opinion contained some incorrect language on harmless error, as the Court’s opinion says in its first six pages. I do not agree that it is “ ⅛ the interest of judicial economy’ ” (ante, at 422) for this Court also to do the harm analysis. The Court’s process was to grant review, require the parties to brief the case, deliberate, and deliver an opinion. If we had summarily granted review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, it could have corrected its error without rebriefing some months ago. That would have been judicial economy.