In the case of Henderson, Correctional Superintendent v. Kibbe in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a trial court's failure to instruct a jury on an element of a crime could be considered harmless error if it was not raised at trial or on appeal. The defendants were charged with felony murder after they left their robbery victim intoxicated and stranded in freezing weather where he died from exposure. The prosecution did not prove that the defendants should have foreseen this outcome as part of their actions during the robbery, which is required for conviction under New York law for felony murder charges. However, defense counsel failed to request such instruction and only raised this issue post-conviction before federal courts claiming violation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that while omission may constitute constitutional error when viewed in context of overall charge by itself; it does not automatically require reversal if found harmless beyond reasonable doubt considering other evidence presented at trial against defendant(s). In this particular case though, because there was no way to determine what verdict would've been had correct instructions given; judgment vacating convictions and remanding for new trials was affirmed.

In the dissenting opinion for Henderson v. Kibbe, Justice Byron White argued that the majority's decision to overturn a murder conviction on grounds of improper jury instruction was unwarranted. He contended that while the trial court may have erred in its instructions regarding causation, this error did not rise to the level of constitutional significance required for federal habeas corpus relief. Moreover, he believed there was no reasonable doubt about whether or not defendants' actions were a substantial factor in causing death and hence it would be harmless beyond any reasonable doubt even if there had been an error in instructing jurors on causation issue. The justice also expressed concern over how such rulings could potentially undermine state courts by encouraging them to seek federal review of their decisions rather than addressing errors at local levels first.