The State argues, however, that because the instruction later states that the State was required to prove “[t]hat the conduct was a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of murder: that is the knowing and intentional killing of another human being,” id. (emphasis added), the earlier error was cured and Carter was not prejudiced as a result. It is well established, however, that a correct jury instruction does not cure an erroneous one: “[T]his court has repeatedly enunciated the rule that the error of a bad instruction is not cured by the giving of correct instructions on the same subject. Such instructions are not viewed as a whole, with this court on appeal left to determine which of the contradictory instructions the jury should reasonably have believed.” FMC Corp 83) (<HOLDING>); Barnes v. State, 435 N.E.2d 235, 242
holding that any misstatements of law during closing argument are presumed cured by final instruction holding thatany error made by the state in its election of offenses was cured during the prosecutors closing argument emphasis added holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard holding that any prejudice resulting from misstatements of law made by the prosecutor during closing was cured by the trial courts proper instruction on the applicable law