can determine that a crime “in fact” occurred. See id. at 171, 861 P.2d at 212 (allowing expert to state that crime in fact occurred may breach cardinal rule of science). Thus, the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony as to the complainants’ credibility. Prejudicial Error The State argues that if the admission of Dr. Lenssen’s testimony was error, it was harmless. “Error in the admission of evidence in a criminal trial must be declared prejudicial and not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” Clark v. State, 112 N.M. 485, 487, 816 P.2d 1107, 1109 (1991). The admission of the expert testimony in this case was not harmless error. See Sanchez v. State, 103 N.M. 25, 27, 702 P.2d 345, 347 (1985) (<HOLDING>). One of the elements for finding harmless
holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive holding a restriction on crossexamination of prosecuting witness in rape case not error in absence of offer of proof in accordance with as 1245045 holding that restriction of defenses crossexamination of expert was reversible error because only other witnesses testifying as to rape were complainant and defendant holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that an identification instruction was unnecessary because of the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses and the arguments to the juiy