at 788. In summary, for the reasons stated above, we hold that each of the reasons listed by the trial court as justifications for the admission of the disputed evidence hinged upon a determination that Defendant actually committed an offense for which he was later acquitted. Thus, the trial court contravened the principle enunciated in Scott by admitting evidence that Defendant possessed Adderall, Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, and Xanax at the time of his arrest on 10 February 2005. 5: Prejudice Finally, we must now determine the extent to which “there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a dif ferent result would have been reached at trial.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 46, 413 S.E.2d at 791; see also State v. Fluker, 139 N.C. App. 768, 776, 535 S.E.2d 68, 73-74 (2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. Robinson, 115 N.C. App. 358, 362,
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 in a felonious breaking or entering and possession of housebreaking implements case the erroneous admission of evidence that the defendant had committed a similar breaking or entering on another occasion for which he was later acquitted constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that the erroneous admission in a misdemeanor larceny case of evidence elicited on crossexamination that the defendant had been detained in another store resulting in charges for which she was later acquitted was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against the defendant holding sentencing courts may consider evidence of conduct or charges of which a defendant was acquitted holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt