move on. N.T. 12/7/11 at 268 (footnote added). Initially, we note that a fair reading of the above excerpt is that, while the trial court sustained Appellant’s objection and gave a cautionary instruction as to the prosecutor’s statement that “[t]he Commonwealth is requesting that you do your duty and that you do something in this case[,]” the trial court did not sustain Appellant’s objection or give a cautionary instruction as to the prosecutor’s statement that “all it takes for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing.” Therefore, since the trial court did not sustain Appellant’s objection to this specific statement, it was unnecessary for Appellant to request specifically a mistrial in order to preserve the issue. See Commonwealth v. Molina, 33 A.3d 51, 56 n. 4 (Pa.Super.2011) (<HOLDING>). With regard to the denial of mistrials, the
holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant holding that when an objection is overruled failing to request curative instructions or a mistrial does not result in waiver recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that a defendant is barred from contending on appeal that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion when he acquiesced in the courts decision to give curative instructions and did not then renew his own motion for mistrial or join in his codefendants renewal of the motion holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review