U.S. 865, 78 L. Ed. 2d 173 (1983). Defendant argues that because the prosecutor repeatedly suggested to the jurors that they could decide this final issue without reference to mitigating circumstances, defendant must be granted a new sentencing hearing. We disagree. Both the State and the defendant have the right to question prospective jurors about their views on the death penalty. State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142, 159, 443 S.E.2d 14, 24, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1994). The manner and extent of such an inquiry lie within the trial court’s discretion. Id. “The trial court has broad discretion to s 987). Even assuming arguendo that the question was improper, any error was cured by the trial court’s instructions. See State v. Anderson, 322 N.C. 22, 38, 366 S.E.2d 459, 469 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 975, 102 L. Ed. 2d 548
holding that any misstatements of law during closing argument are presumed cured by final instruction holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction 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 that even though the reasonable doubt instruction given in the case was not the preferred instruction it was not a misstatement of the law and therefore was legally appropriate holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction