the jury. Again, we note that defendants’ motion in limine was denied. Our Supreme Court has held that “[questions asked on cross-examination will be considered proper unless the record shows they were asked in bad faith.” State v. Lovin, 339 N.C. 695, 713, 454 S.E.2d 229, 239 (1995). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the prosecutor’s questions were asked in bad faith. In addition, the trial court sustained the objections, struck one question from the record, and issued a curative instruction. As such, there was no prejudicial evidence introduced in response to the prosecutor’s questions. The trial judge’s action in sustaining the objections was sufficient to remedy any harm that resulted from the asking of the questions. See Jaynes, 342 N.C. at 280, 464 S.E.2d at 467 (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. McLean, 294 N.C. 623, 634-35,
holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question holding that the trial courts actions in sustaining the defendants objections were sufficient to remedy any possible harm resulting from the mere asking of the three questions by the prosecutor 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