concurrence">

Concurring Opinion

DeBruler, C.J.

I concur fully in both aspects of the majority opinion. However, I believe the Court has the duty to proceed to determine whether or not the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U. S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705; Greer v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 20, 245 N. E. 2d 158. There is no general formula for applying that test and each case must be decided on its own facts.

In this case the State’s case-in-chief consisted solely of the dead body, a shotgun, and the police officer’s testimony about appellant’s admission that she had used the shotgun to shoot her husband. Appellant’s case was based on self-defense. Clearly, without the erroneously admitted statement of appel*278Iant, the State’s case-in-chief would not have been sufficient to survive a motion for a directed verdict. When an erroneously-admitted statement is an essential part of the State’s .case-in-chief, it can never be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because without it the appellant would not have had to present a defense of any kind. The erroneous admission worked a major change in the position of appellant. Greer v. State, supra.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress