shooter. In any event, assuming any error occurred, it was harmless. See Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (“The inquiry [for purposes of harmless-error analysis] is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”) Regardless of what words the expert chose to use in responding to the prosecutor’s question, credit should be given to the common sense and fairmindedness of the jurors who understand that the likely purpose of shooting someone in the head at close range with a high-powered rifle is to cause immediate death. State v. Green, 81-2661, 416 So.2d 539, 541 (La.1982) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the expert underscored this
holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness recognizing the common sense and fairmindedness of jurors and their ability to distinguish meaningful evidence from unwarranted comments holding that a reason to combine may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art the nature of the problem to be solved or common knowledge and common sense recognizing the necessity of applying common sense and an appropriate sensitivity to social context recognizing that to avoid absurd results the court has a duty to interpret the rules of criminal procedure with logic and common sense