365, 408, 459 S.E.2d 638, 662 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1108, 134 L. Ed. 2d 478, 116 S. Ct. 1327 (1996). “A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the Constitution of the United States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises. The burden of showing such prejudice under this subsection is upon the defendant.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2007). Given the overwhelming evidence against defendant, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that, had the court not questioned Medlin, a different result would have been reached at trial. See State v. Rushdan, 183 N.C. App. 281, 286, 644 S.E.2d 568, 572 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 574, 651 S.E.2d
holding stricklands prejudice prong was not met because of overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that trial courts witness interrogation did not cause defendant prejudice when there was already overwhelming evidence showing defendants guilt holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt