"sexual nature" but did not allow the State to discuss the details of the text messages. Milton objected, arguing that he would be unfairly prejudiced because the jury would be left to speculate about the contents of the text messages and how they were related to the charged crimes. At trial the victim's mother testified that Milton's cousin showed her "text messages that were sexual in nature which brought me concern for [my child]" and were "disturbing." The State also elicited testimony from the cousin who testified that the text messages did not involve the victim but were "sexual" and upsetting or disturbing. A police officer testified that Milton's cousin also showed her the text messages out of concern for the child victim. Although Milton's text messages may have had some tendency to aid the jury in understanding why the victim's mother spoke with her daughter about whether she had been inappropriately touched by Milton, see NRS 48.015 (defining relevant evidence), the vague references to disturbing text messages of a sexual nature unnecessarily allowed the jury to speculate that Milton was sending text messages to his cousin about committing lewd acts with other six-year-old girls or other bad acts of a sexual nature. We conclude that the probative value of the text message testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury and the district court abused its discretion by allowing the witnesses to describe the text messages as "sexual in nature" and "disturbing." See NRS 48.035(1). But, we also conclude that the error was harmless and did not deny Milton a fair trial because there was overwhelming evidence of Milton's guilt. See NRS 178.598; Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1189, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008); Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990)

2 (explaining that "the category of infractions that violate 'fundamental fairness" is very narrow). The six-year-old victim testified that Milton touched her vaginal area and her testimony was corroborated by a detective, her mother, and her cousin. Furthermore, Milton told detectives that touching the victim's vaginal area was "arousing," "a little turn on thing," "a little fetish kinda thing," and a turn on for him. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

-ee4-7Z‘ J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

Cherry CkSZA I J.

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3