but require automatic reversal”). In Arizona v. Fulminante, the United States Supreme Court distinguished between structural errors, which are not subject to the harmless-error analysis, and “trial errors.” 499 U.S. 279, 306-08, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1263-64, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). Trial errors occur during the presentation of a case to the jury and may be quantitatively assessed in the context of all evidence presented to determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In determining whether an error is a structural error, the Supreme Court looks to: (1) “the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error” on the trial; and (2) “the irrelevance of harmlessness.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 149 n. 4, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 2564 n. 4, 165 L.Ed.2d 4 05) (<HOLDING>). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet
holding that under the sixth amendment right to trial by jury aggravating factors that operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a charged offense must be found by a jury holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error