asked why handwriting exemplars were not taken, the detective responded “when I had arrested [Boone and Brown], they wanted their attorneys. They didn’t want to give me a statement. They didn’t want to say anything,” (N.T., 11/20/02, at 73), which prompted an immediate objection. The question gives no indication that the Commonwealth intended to elicit such testimony from the detective, nor was there any attempt to exploit the statement later in the proceedings. Moreover, the trial judge sustained the defense objection, ordered the testimony stricken, and instructed the jury to disregard the declaration. Although the curative instruction was not detailed, succinct instructions have been found sufficient in the past. See Commonwealth v. Mays, 361 Pa.Super. 554, 523 A.2d 357, 359 (1987) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 In addition, an error is considered
holding prompt instruction to completely disregard the testimony of the officer adequately precluded further prejudice holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that prosecutorial blunder did not prejudice the defendant as the blunder was effectively cured by the instruction to the jury to disregard it holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard