of guilty, where they have prestige enough to induce the trial court to give them latitude. When the error is exposed on appeal, it is met by the stereotyped argument that it is not apparent it in any wise influenced the minds of the jury. The reply the law makes to such suggestion is: that, after injecting it into the case to influence the jury, the prosecutor ought not to be heard to say, after he has secured a conviction, it was harmless. State v. Rowell, 77 N.M. 124, 128-29, 419 P.2d 966, 970 (1966). {20} Because of the magnitude of the misconduct, and because evidence of guilt was not overwhelming, we conclude that the prosecutor’s conduct was unwarranted and prejudicial to Defendant’s right to a fair trial. See State v. Bartlett, 96 N.M. 415, 419, 631 P.2d 321, 325 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). {21} Because there was no objection, we also
holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext holding that it is prejudicial to indicate to the jury that the plaintiff has or may have another remedy   holding that the presence of four uniformed state troopers in the front row of the gallery was neither inherently nor actually prejudicial to the defendant holding that intentionally communicating falsehoods to the jury is inherently prejudicial the effects of which cannot be erased