present case by admitting the photographs of Victim when he was alive. There no doubt may be instances in which a photograph of a victim while alive can have no legitimate purpose than to inflame the passions of the jury against a defendant, with that likely effect. But Garcia points to no particular circumstances in his case, or to any particular aspect of the admitted photographs, that necessa rison with the evidence supporting Defendants’ convictions, including the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, experts, and investigators, as well as testimony that Garcia and Munoz each fired a rifle at Victim’s vehicle. Because the photos are not likely to have contributed to Defendants’ convictions, we conclude that reversible error was not committed. See Baros, 87 N.M. at 50, 529 P.2d at 276 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION {52} We affirm the convictions of
holding that prosecutors remarks were harmless in light of overwhelming evidence against defendants holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt