introduction of psychiatric testimony. It is true that in Mississippi, once the defendant raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, “the State bears the burden to prove [the defendant’s] sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Miss.1990). But while we credit Crawford’s argument, this is a distinction without a difference. Satterwhite holds that harmless error analysis may apply even when the State has the burden to show a relevant mental state. See Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 256-58, 108 S.Ct. 1792. Although this burden is a heavy one, this court must still consider whether the introduction of the psychiatric examination had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the State’s ability to carry that burden. Woods, 75 F.3d at 1027; see id. at 1027-1033 (<HOLDING>); see also Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 258, 108
holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense holding that the introduction of a psychiatric examination was harmless even though the state bore the burden of establishing future dangerousness recognizing that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that plain error was prejudicial holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property holding that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant