election errors are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis. See State v. Qualls, 482 S.W.3d 1, 18-20 (Tenn.2016) (applying constitutional harmless error analysis to assess election error); State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 371 (Tenn.2008) (“The test used to determine whether a non-structural constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). The Court of Criminal Appeals held in this case that, “[bjased upon the indictment and the State’s closing argument, the Defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict was not violated.” Smith, 2014 WL 3954062, at *6. Specifically, WL 1580662, at *10 (Tenn.Crim.App. July 15, 2004)(<HOLDING>). . We ' hold that the notion that a
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that any error was harmless when prosecutor stated in closing argument that the state was electing a specific incident the victim had testified to with particularity holding that it was harmless error when the prosecutor focused on a single incident in closing argument holding that plainerror exception did not apply where prosecutor asked jury to assume the role of the victim in closing argument holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument