stand for the proposition that the trial court may provide a disjunctive instruction, including multiple theories of establishing an element of a crime, when one theory has a basis in the evidence and the others do not. Consequently, Lawrence provides no support for the State’s argument. Additionally, by relying solely on its argument that Defendant’s confession to acts of fellatio was sufficiently corroborated to satisfy the corpus delicti rule, the State has failed to meet its burden of showing the trial court’s error was harmless. “Where an error implicates a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict under our Constitution, the State bears the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” Boyd, _ N.C. App. at_,_S.E.2d at_, 2011 WL 3276612 at *6 (<HOLDING>). While there was substantive evidence of some
holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error holding that failure to charge jury that state had burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in the heat of passion was harmless because the evidence did not support a charge on passionprovocation manslaughter holding that a challenged jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the trial court elsewhere instructed the jury that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the trial courts erroneous instruction on the nonexistent included offense of attempted reckless manslaughter was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the jury reached a unanimous guilty verdict as to the charged offense of attempted murder in the second degree holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal