impeached. Stokes and Ghent said that they recognized Williams from Little League baseball, but that was some seventeen years beforehand. Also, Ghent failed to mention Williams by name in the 9-1-1 call even though he testified he recognized Williams as soon as he walked in the door. In fact, at first Ghent told the. 9-1-1 operator, “I didn’t know who it was.” Later in the call he said, “I think I know who the person is.” Only after the two men returned to the scene and spoke together did they both positively identify the perpetrator as Fabian Williams. Furthermore, because the evidence of flight established an inference of consciousness of guilt, we simply cannot say that that this evidence did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (<HOLDING>). Because the evidence was insufficient to
holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction holding that a constitutional error is harmless where it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction