Rule 81(b)(2) to constrain us in Cain. But this case does not involve a claim of state constitutional dimension, and because I agree that this particular federal constitutional defect is not structural, and that it ought to be “subject to harmless error review” within the meaning of Rule 44.2(a), I concur. 1 . Former Rule 81(b)(2) read: “If the appellate record in a criminal case reveals error in the proceedings below, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment under review, unless the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.” Tex R. App. P. 81(b)(2), 49 Tex. B.J. 581 (Tex. & Tex. Crim. App. 1986, amended 1997). 2 . See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) ("Any other
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 holding constitutional error may be harmless if court can  declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt  quoting state v napeahi 57 haw 365 373 556 p2d 569 574 1976 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 in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 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