What is the legal test for determining whether a constitutional error does not automatically require reversal?

In Arizona v. Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, the court reviewed its prior decisions and articulated a basis for distinguishing between constitutional errors which do not automatically require reversal and those which do. [62 Cal.App.4th 195] The court characterized the former as "trial errors" which occur during the presentation of the case to the jury. (499 U.S. at p. 307, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1263.) An error always requiring reversal, on the other hand, is a "structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself." (Id. at p. 310, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1265.)

In Sullivan v. Louisiana, supra, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182, the high court further illuminated the process of reviewing constitutional errors when it held that giving a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction is reversible error per se. The court reasoned that because of the deficient instruction, there was no jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by the Sixth Amendment. (508 U.S. at pp. 278-281, 113 S.Ct. at pp. 2081-2083.) In arriving at this outcome, the court discussed the Chapman harmless error process, stating: