purpose of safeguarding our duty under Code § 8.01-678 to reverse only when the trial error actually prejudiced the defense.” Ray, 55 Va.App. at 650, 688 S.E.2d at 881 (footnote added). Absent a proffer showing “harm was done,” we are “forbidden to consider the question.” Scott v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 73, 79, 60 S.E.2d 14, 16 (1950). This is because “a proffer allows us to examine both the ‘admissibility of the proposed testimony,’ and whether, even if admissible, its exclusion ‘prejudiced’ the proffering party.” T (1996) (observing “defendant has not made the requisite proffer of the contemplated evidence,” and thus, the “denial of allocution was harmless error” (quoting State v. Hunt, 257 Kan. 388, 894 P.2d 178, 191 (1995))); State v. Duke, 256 Kan. 703, 887 P.2d 110, 126 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Harris v. State, 306 Md. 344, 509 A.2d 120,
holding the failure to proffer rendered the allocution error harmless holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding exclusion was harmless error holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt