to the jury that Shepherd smoked marijuana, he was not unduly prejudiced by Fleischer’s remark. Fleischer also stated that when he first walked up to the apartment complex, he recognized Shepherd from other contact he had had with him. Although no evidence was introduced to mitigate the prejudicial nature of this statement, the Commonwealth’s proposed admonition explained that the jury should not hold this comment against Shepherd because Fleischer patrolled Shepherd’s neighborhood often and was trained to be familiar with the people living there. Even though Shepherd declined the proposed admonition, if it had been offered, it would have cured any potential prejudice. When an admonitory cure is possible, a mistrial is not required. Graves v. Commonwealth, 17 S.W.3d 858, 865 (Ky.2000) (<HOLDING>). Lastly, Fleischer testified that he and the
holding if the admonition would have cured the prejudice there is no necessity for a mistrial even if the appellant declined to request an admonition holding that there is no prejudice if an error had little likelihood of affecting the verdict holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice holding that a request for an instruction on entrapment should be refused even if there is evidence to support the defense if the defendant has denied under oath the acts constituting the crime that is charged holding that a judges constitutional challenges to commissions admonition would have been considered by the arkansas supreme court had such matters been on the record