held harmless, the appellate court must be able to declare that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125 (Ala.1993), the Alabama Supreme Court explained: “In determining whether the admission of improper testimony is reversible error, this Court has stated that the reviewing court must determine whether the ‘improper admission of the evidence ... might have adversely affected the defendant’s right to a fair trial,’ and before the reviewing court can affirm a judgment based upon the ‘harmless error’ rule, that court must find conclusively that the trial court’s error did not affect the outcome of the trial or otherwise prejudice a substantial right of the defendant.” 630 So.2d at 126. See also Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.1993) (<HOLDING>). Even if the admission of Barnes’s testimony
holding that the improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach for bias is subject to harmlesserror review in which the reviewing court must determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful holding that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that in resolving whether the crime occurred in tennessee they must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence introduced on that issue holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks absent the improperly introduced evidence is it clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty