How have courts dealt with a claim of error by a defendant in a civil case?

^18. Although defendant appears to argue there is a federal constitutional dimension to his claim of error, he neglects to identify the precise constitutional right involved or the manner in which it may have been violated. He simply asserts he would have benefited had the jury determined there were multiple conspiracies, without showing how. Accordingly, the error appears to be one of state law only. Even if we were to subject the claimed error to review under the standard for federal constitutional error, we would find it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18; People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 424-431.)