Because this Court has long held that a prosecutor’s closing remarks constitute reversible error where they are designed to appeal to “bias, passion, or prejudice,” Snow contends that this Court should find reversible error in the instant case. ¶42. The applicable standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion. McGilberry v. State, 741 So.2d at 907. This Court has held that a mistrial is reserved for occasions where the trial court can take no action to cure the improper occurrences. Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581 (Miss.1995). In Walker, this Court stated: Elementary to all trial proceedings is the proposition that the occurrence of any prejudicially incompetent matter or misconduct before a jury, the damaging effect of which cannot be removed by adm 6)(<HOLDING>). b. ¶ 44. Snow also alleges that a note
holding that a defendant is barred from contending on appeal that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion when he acquiesced in the courts decision to give curative instructions and did not then renew his own motion for mistrial or join in his codefendants renewal of the motion holding that when an objection is overruled failing to request curative instructions or a mistrial does not result in waiver holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions holding defendant not entitled to mistrial after emotional outburst during states closing argument where the court gave curative instructions to disregard incident as irrelevant to case holding trial courts curative instructions adequately prevented error from arising due to spectators emotional outburst during states closing argument in guiltinnocence phase of capital murder prosecution