move the admission of the photographs from fair humanization of Victim to unfair and prejudicial inflammation such that the court’s admission of the photographs constituted an abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Webb, 81 N.M. 508, 510, 469 P.2d 153, 155 (Ct.App.1970) (“The question of admissibility of photographic evidence, objected to as being inflammatory of the passions and prejudices of the jury, is largely one of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. Ordinarily, the trial court’s discretion thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.” (citations omitted)). Further, even if the admission of the photographs of Victim with his children was an abuse of discretion, we conclude that the error was harmless. See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312, 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct. App.1988) (<HOLDING>). The photographic evidence is minuscule in
holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding admission of challenged evidence is harmless error where the record contains other properly admitted evidence that independently establishes guilt holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt