was adversely affected, also relied on the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument that “[t]here was no proof that the defendant was at the house on Watkins.” Id. This Court previously has not addressed specifically whether the State’s closing argument can “cure” the failure of the State to properly elect the facts for the jury to consider for proof of a particular offeiise or whether the State’s closing argument can render harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the State’s failure to elect an offense. Several Court of Criminal Appeals cases have held that closing argument can “cure” an election error or provide an “effective substitute” such that no error even occurred. See, e.g., State v. Branham, No. E2014-02071-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 106603, at *12 (Tenn.Crim.App. Jan. 8, 2016) (<HOLDING>); State v. Marks, No. W2012-00564-CCA-R3-CD,
holding that the prosecutors closing argument effectively served as an election of the proof upon which the state wished to proceed holding thatany error made by the state in its election of offenses was cured during the prosecutors closing argument emphasis added holding that any prejudice resulting from misstatements of law made by the prosecutor during closing was cured by the trial courts proper instruction on the applicable law holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire holding that any misstatements of law during closing argument are presumed cured by final instruction