and appellant incorrectly argues on appeal that the DNA evidence was the “sum and substance of the State’s case.” Appellant had admitted that Ethan sucked his penis on multiple occasions for one to two minutes, and appellant admitted to ejaculating on the floor of the prison and inside Ethan’s mouth. Thus, the evidence supporting the conviction was strong, and the jury certainly would have convicted appellant regardless of the improper argument. Further, by “sustaining appellant’s objection and instructing the jury as it did [to disregard the prosecutor’s statement], the trial court sufficiently ameliorated any potential harm.” Id. at 700. We cannot conclude this was an extreme case with incurable prejudice warranting reversal. See id. at 699; see also Tucker, 15 S.W.3d at 238 (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s decision was within the
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that the prosecutors argument injecting new facts based on specialized experience was harmless even though the first factor favored reversal because the trial court told the jury to disregard the comment and the evidence of the defendants selfdefense claim was tenuous holding that even though trial courts definition of female genitalia was a comment on evidence and invaded province of jury the error was harmless holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement