In Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 578-579, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460, 106 S. Ct. 3101, the Supreme Court held, "While there are some errors to which Chapman does not apply, they are the exception and not the rule. Accordingly, if the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis. The thrust of the many constitutional rules governing the conduct of criminal trials is to ensure that those trials lead to fair and correct judgments. Where a reviewing court can find that the record developed at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the interest in fairness has been satisfied and the judgment should be affirmed. As the Court repeatedly stated, 'the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one."