establish that aspects of Petersohn’s testimony concerning the drug courier profile would be helpful to the trier of fact, relevant to the issue of Salcedo’s knowledge, and not unfairly prejudicial or misleading. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Petersohn to testify as an expert witness on the drug courier profile and to, opine that Salcedo knowingly possessed cocaine. III. Although the People agree that the trial court erred by permitting Petersohn to opine that the defendant was guilty and to testify about the behavior and characteristics of drug couriers, it.contends that the error was harmless. We disagree. A trial court’s erroneous eviden-tiary ruling will not be reversed where the error is harmless. See Tevlin v. People, 715 P.2d 338, 341 (Colo.1986) (<HOLDING>). An error is harmless if it “does not affect
holding that the trial courts erroneous admission of an experts opinion that the defendant was guilty was harmless where the prosecution produced overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming 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 improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt