an “[ajbuse of discretion exists when the trial court acted in an obviously erroneous, arbitrary, or unwarranted manner” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Simonson, 100 N.M. 297, 301, 669 P.2d 1092, 1096 (1983); State v. Burdex, 100 N.M. 197, 200, 668 P.2d ion of evidence concerning the .38 caliber revolver in Munoz’s truck. The State contends that the prejudicial effect of this evidence was slim to nonexistent. We agree. The jury had already heard a good deal of evidence concerning guns, including Munoz’s two rifles, a Luger, and a Tech .22. The testimony concerning the presence of a .38 caliber weapon in the glove box of Munoz’s truck cannot have had any prejudicial impact on the verdict. See State ¶. Christopher, 94 N.M. 648, 653, 615 P.2d 263, 268 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Burdex, 100 N.M. at 200, 668 P.2d at 316
holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that any error that court may have made in admitting inadmissible evidence was harmless because government presented overwhelming evidence establishing defendants guilt holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction holding that the admission of testimony concerning the presence of a gun in the family home may have been inadmissible but the evidence was miniscule sic in relation to the overwhelming amount of evidence properly before the jury such that any error was harmless and the district court properly denied a motion for mistrial