noted that the majority need not address those issues as the reversal of the death sentence and the remand for resentencing renders them moot. In my view, the Court’s discussion in those sections is mere dicta. II. TRIAL ERRORS Because of the errors noted below, the conviction should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. A. The Reasonable Doubt Instruction is Insufficient. The giving of the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was reversible error for the same reasons expressed in State v. Rhoades, 121 Idaho 63, 83-4, 822 P.2d 960, 980-1 (1991) (Bistline, J., dissenting), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 962, 122 L.Ed.2d 119 (1993). Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial. Sullivan v. Louisiana, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2082, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (<HOLDING>). B. The Criminal Negligence Instruction Which
holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error holding that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt