the defendant was attempting to exculpate himself with a confession, and a defendant seeking to make exculpatory statements must face cross-examination unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicated the trustworthiness of the statements. Unlike the defendant in Terry, Golson testified in his own defense. He did not render himself unavailable as a witness by virtue of the exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The prosecution was afforded ample opportunity to, and did in fact, cross-examine Golson. We find the holding in Terry did not control the evidentiary issue in this case, and the trial court erred in so finding. This trial error, however, is subject to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Mouzon, 326 S.C. 199, 204, 485 S.E.2d 918, 921 (1997) (<HOLDING>). [I]n order for this Court to reverse a case
holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that confronta tion clause errors were subject to harmless error analysis holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis