adjudication of guilt upon which, under appropriate circumstances, harmless error analysis can operate. See United States v. Raether, 82 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir.1996) (observing that Sullivan does not prevent harmless error review where "the district court’s failure to let the jury decide the [omitted] issue did not prevent the juiy from properly deciding the other issues in the case”). 13 . In deciding that a constitutional error of the sort involved here can in some situations be harmless, we take comfort in our own prior opinions. Though before today we have not directly addressed whether an instructional omission can constitute harmless error, our Court has never treated this type of flaw as reversible per se. See United States v. Miller, 22 F.3d 1075, 1079-80 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Knight v. Dugger, 863 F.2d 705, 707, 730-31
holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis recognizing plain or fundamental error holding that omission was not plain error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that failure to define possession was not plain error