for her adjudication. Absent a showing that the trial court’s failure to give the required explanation may have affected the adjudication or the basis for it, the error was harmless. We note that our holding today regarding the explanations required by section 54.03(b) of the Family Code is limited. The only issue before us is whether an appellate court should conduct a harm analysis when a trial court fails to explain the potential use of the record from a juvenile proceeding in a future criminal case. We are not called upon to decide, and do not decide, whether the failure to give one or more of the other explanations required by section 54.03(b) of the Family Code might be a “structural defect[] in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which deifies] —Eastland 1975, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 16 . See cases cited supra note 15. 17 . See
holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal holding that explanations of allegations and possible consequences of the proceeding were mandatory and that failure to give these explanations was reversible error holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences was fundamental error that required reversal even though the juvenile had not raised this in his brief