weight of authorities support the view that Neder’s discussion of “uncontested” was, in fact, “merely descriptive” of what happened in that case and was not a “prescriptive” mandate of a new test for every subsequent case. VI. Alleyne Errors Are Not Structural Errors The other concurrence’s approach in effect subjects a subset of instructional-error cases to structural error, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s mandate that harmless-error review — and not structural error — applies to such cases. The Supreme Court has stated that most constitutional errors are subject to harmless-error review, and that only in rare cases will they be deemed structural errors requiring automatic reversal. See, e.g., Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625,
holding that preserved apprendiblakely error like the failure to submit an element to the jury in neder  is not structural error and is instead subject to harmlesserror review holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review holding that the harmlesserror rule of chapman v california  applies to the failure of a trial judge to submit an element of the offense to the jury holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis