With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2d 907 (1999); Commonwealth v. Stafford, 450 Pa. 252, 257, 299 A.2d 590 (defendant not harmed by court’s refusal to remove allegedly biased juror because juror was seated as alternate and excused after trial court’s charge), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 943, 93 S. Ct. 2775, 37 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1973); State v. Green, 301 S.C. 347, 354, 392 S.E.2d 157 (any error in qualification of venireperson as alternate juror was harmless beyond reasonable doubt in light of fact that it never became necessary to use alternates), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S. Ct. 229, 112 L. Ed. 2d 183 (1990). In such cases, the alternate juror who should not have been included on the panel had no “pervasive effect on the trier of fact . . . .” People v. Rodriguez, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1013, 1035, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 (1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 1997 Cal. LEXIS 962 (February

A: holding that improper exercise of peremptory challenge by state during selection of alternate jurors was subject to harmless error analysis because with the benefit of hindsight we can determine whether the defendant suffered any harm as a result of the trial courts error
B: holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis
C: holding improper vouching is subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
A.