absent the [erroneously admitted evidence,] is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty?” 461 U.S. at 510-11, 103 S.Ct. 1974. Setting aside the evidence seized during the warrantless search of Harris’s house,'it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty — the same verdict it did in fact return. III. Because any error by the trial court in admitting the evidence seized during the warrantless search of Harris’s house was harmless error, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment. AFFIRMED. HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur. 1 . Officer Shepard could not recall the names of the other three officers, but she testified that two officers pp.1995)(<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 402 So.2d 1111, 1113
holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that the police may conduct a warrantless search if they believe that their own lives or the lives of others are at risk recognizing that for fourth amendment purposes an arrest warrant supported by probable cause carries with it limited authority to enter a dwelling in which a suspect lives when there is reason to believe that the suspect is within holding jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may believe some witnesses and refuse to believe others holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search