it from weighing the evidence objectively and rendering a fair verdict. The prosecutor’s references were brief, and, as noted, did not reveal explicitly the nature of Richard’s death. By sustaining Appellant’s objection, the trial court cut off any further suggestion regarding the cause of Richard’s death, and refocused the prosecutor’s remaining remarks on threats Appellant had made to Tanesha. Additionally, the trial court cautioned the jury that the prosecutor’s statements did not constitute evidence and that evidence of Appellant’s prior offenses should be considered only for the limited purpose of establishing that he acted pursuant to a common scheme, plan, or design. We presume the jury followed this instruction. Commonwealth v. Brown, 567 Pa. 272, 786 A.2d 961, 971 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate
recognizing that this court presumes that juries follow district courts instructions holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions