question was sustained before the detective could answer. Although a transcript of Kemp’s statement is not part of the record, it appears the answer to the question about the parking lot would have been that Kemp said he was getting nervous. Id. at 98. Apparently, the question to which Kemp asserted his Miranda rights was a later question asking whether Juarez got into his truck. Id. Kemp points to no part of the record to show otherwise. There was no error. But even assuming it was an improper question, Kemp suffered no prejudice because his objection was immediately sustained before the witness answered the question. In similar cases, we have held that a sustained objection protects a party from improper questions. State v. Sullivan, 130 Ariz. 213, 217-18, 635 P.2d 501, 505-06 (1981) (<HOLDING>); State v. Clark, 110 Ariz. 242, 244, 517 P.2d
holding that prejudice from question concerning the treatment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity to be cured by immediately sustaining objection and by a curative instruction to the jury holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer holding that a question of prejudice goes directly to the question of standing therefore the prejudice issue must be reached before addressing the merits holding that prejudice from a question that violated doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered