contends that he was improperly precluded from fully examining this witness about his motive for testifying. {48} Although the record contains pretrial and sidebar exchanges concerning Garcia’s entitlement to information about the witness’s prior convictions, it is devoid of any indication that Garcia was prevented from any proper exploration of the witness’s criminal background or motive. In fact, in the admission of photographs of Victim after receiving the fatal gunshot wound. {51} Garcia argues that admission of the portrait photographs of Victim prior to his death was error because Victim’s identity was not at issue and, therefore, there was no need to establish Victim’s identity by use of the photographs. Cf. State v. Baros, 87 N.M. 49, 50, 529 P.2d 275, 276 (Ct.App. 1974) (<HOLDING>). However, we cannot conclude that the court
holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question holding that the admission of a photograph of a homicide victim for the purpose of identification was within the discretion of the district court and determining that a family photo excluded by the court as prejudicial that was inadvertently seen by two jurors was harmless error holding that a potentially inflammatory photograph of a victims face was relevant and that its admission was well within the discretion of the district court 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 district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury