issue is whether lack of consent is an element of burglary. While the majority has chosen to ignore the law of this State, as announced by our courts, that does not change the law. The plain and simple fact is that lack of consent is an element of burglary. Because of that fact, I believe that this Court is required to reverse and render this conviction. B. Sufficiency of the evidence ¶ 66. While it is a secondary consideration, I also find the majority’s treatment of issue 6, the sufficiency of the evidence ufficiency of the evidence would merely require than any issues on appeal found to have merit be considered harmless error. See Carraway v. State, 562 So.2d 1199, 1203-1205 (Miss.1990) (citing Hall v. State, 546 So.2d 673 (Miss.1989); Porter v. State, 551 So.2d 104 (Miss.1989)) (<HOLDING>). C. Error in denying Sandefer’s motion for a
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding exclusion was harmless error holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error