context: . Although the trial court's instruction removing the elements of the crime from the purview of the jury was incorrect, the error was harmless. The uncontested evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the robberies involved the theft of jewelry, and that the jewelry stores had received their inventories from out of state. As such, no reasonable juror could have found that the jewelry stolen was not personal property or that the robberies did not impact interstate commerce.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: "[0]mission of an element is an error that is subject to harmless-error analysis."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 553-55 (3d Cir.2004) (holding that harmless error review applied when the trial court instructed the jury that the materiality element of counts for perjury and failure to disclose a material fact had been satisfied as a matter of law); see also Neder, 527 U.S. at 15, 119 S.Ct. 1827 ("[0]mission of an element is an error that is subject to harmless-error analysis.").
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 386 F.3d 547, 553-55
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that harmless error review applied when the trial court instructed the jury that the materiality element of counts for perjury and failure to disclose a material fact had been satisfied as a matter of law
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 553-55 (3d Cir.2004) (holding that harmless error review applied when the trial court instructed the jury that the materiality element of counts for perjury and failure to disclose a material fact had been satisfied as a matter of law); see also Neder, 527 U.S. at 15, 119 S.Ct. 1827 ("[0]mission of an element is an error that is subject to harmless-error analysis.").