In a review for harmless error, the burden is on the State, which committed the error over defendant's objection, to demonstrate a lack of prejudice for that error. State v. Reichmand, 2010 MT 228, ¶ 42, 358 Mont. 68, 243 P.3d 423.
The first step in the inquiry for harmless error issues is to determine whether the error was structural error or trial error. Structural error is that type of error that "affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself. Such error is typically of constitutional dimensions, precedes the trial, and undermines the fairness of the entire trial proceeding. Structural error is presumptively prejudicial and not subject to harmless error review. Trial error is the type of error that typically occurs during the presentation of a case to the jury. Trial error is not presumptively prejudicial and therefore not automatically reversible, and is subject to review under the harmless error statute, § 46-20-701(1), MCA. If the error is trial error, it must then be determined whether the error was harmless under the circumstances. State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶¶ 38-41, 306 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735.
The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence might have contributed to a conviction. State v. Van Kirk, 2001 MT 184, ¶ 42, 306 Mont. 215, 32 P.3d 735.