slipped to the ground only because he did not have a “good grip.” The jury accepted Officer Coffey’s version of the facts. Because the evidence of Jones’ guilt was compelling and overwhelming, we hold that the prosecutor’s comments did not so impair the fairness of the trial as to constitute fundamental error. If there was any error, it was harmless when considered in light of the evidence in the case. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (explaining that harmless error test “places the burden on the state ... to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction”); State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the convictions for
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that prosecutorial comments which were excessively pungent did not constitute harmful error in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt